Opinion ID: 1129288
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Challenging the State's Forensic Evidence

Text: Lott also makes a conclusory allegation that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate and rebut the forensic evidence. The circuit court rejected this claim, finding neither deficiency nor prejudice. On the deficiency prong, the court noted that counsel attacked the evidence on cross-examination by eliciting admissions that: (1) the fibers would match any Hanes brand T-shirt; and (2) the shoe print was not unique to Mr. Lott's shoe and would match any same-sized Spalding tennis shoe manufactured using the same mold. On the prejudice prong, the court noted that at the evidentiary hearing Lott did not demonstrate anything else that trial counsel could or should have done to cast doubt on the relevance of the fiber and shoe print evidence. We agree on both points. Moreover, we have repeatedly held that conclusory allegations are insufficient to warrant relief on an ineffective assistance claim. Wright v. State, 857 So.2d 861, 877 (Fla.2003) (citing Kennedy v. State, 547 So.2d 912, 913 (Fla. 1989)). Accordingly, we reject this conclusory claim.