Opinion ID: 1859858
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: prison escape and photograph evidence

Text: Our habeas corpus standard of review for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel mirrors the Strickland [7] standard for trial counsel ineffectiveness. See Rutherford v. Moore, 774 So.2d 637, 643 (Fla.2000). We said in Rutherford: [T]his Court's ability to grant habeas relief on the basis of appellate counsel's ineffectiveness is limited to those situations where the petitioner establishes first, that appellate counsel's performance was deficient because the alleged omissions are of such magnitude as to constitute a serious error or substantial deficiency falling measurably outside the range of professionally acceptable performance and second, that the petitioner was prejudiced because appellate counsel's deficiency compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence in the correctness of the result. Id. at 643 (quoting Thompson v. State, 759 So.2d 650, 660 (Fla.2000)). With regard to evidentiary objections which trial counsel made during the trial and which appellate counsel did not raise on direct appeal, this Court evaluates the prejudice or second prong of the Strickland test first. In doing so, we begin our review of the prejudice prong by examining the specific objection made by trial counsel for harmful error. A successful petition must demonstrate that the erroneous ruling prejudiced the petitioner. If we conclude that the trial court's ruling was not erroneous, then it naturally follows that habeas petitioner was not prejudiced on account of appellate counsel's failure to raise that issue. If we do conclude that the trial court's evidentiary ruling was erroneous, we then consider whether such error is harmful error. If that error was harmless, the petitioner likewise would not have been prejudiced. Jones argues that appellate counsel should have pursued on direct appeal objections to the admission of details of his prison escape in Maryland. The gravamen of Jones's prison escape contention is that appellate counsel erred in not raising objections made by trial counsel to those portions of Antonie Garrett's testimony regarding the Maryland prison escape. Garrett, a Maryland correctional officer, testified that while he was working yard duty at the Maryland House of Corrections on June 25, 1988, inmate Griffin threatened Garrett with a knife. His testimony revealed that Griffin prevented him from moving or sounding an alarm while inmate Goins cut a hole in the prison fence. Garrett watched as a total of five inmates went through the hole Goins cut in the fence. [8] Trial counsel objected to this testimony and argued that it was not relevant, and even if relevant, the prejudicial effect far outweighed its probative value. By the time Garrett testified, other witnesses had testified without objection that Jones had escaped from prison. Officer Berkley Clayton testified that he had received flyers concerning a Maryland prison escape. Officer Clayton testified that from these flyers he identified Jones, Griffin, and Goins as three individuals who had escaped from the Maryland prison. Traveling companion Harris testified that Jones, Griffin, and Goins told her that the trio had escaped from prison and that they were not going to go back. Thus, at the time Garrett testified, the jury had been exposed to Jones's prison escape. [9] On direct appeal, objections under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2000), are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. See Williamson v. State, 681 So.2d 688, 696 (Fla.1996). In Williamson, we said: Almost all evidence introduced during a criminal trial prosecution is prejudicial to a defendant. In reviewing testimony about a collateral crime that is admitted over an objection based upon section 90.403, a trial judge must balance the import of the evidence with respect to the case of the party offering it against the danger of unfair prejudice. Only when the unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence should it be excluded. (Citations omitted.) The trial judge, after viewing Garrett's proffer, specifically ruled that Garrett's testimony was relevant and found that the probative value was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The trial judge reasoned that Garrett's testimony was relevant because the escape, when considering the closeness in time to the murder (approximately two weeks) and the fact the victim was a police officer, went to show Jones's state of mind. The trial judge specifically prohibited the State from exploring the reasons why Jones was in custody in Maryland. Based on our review of the trial record regarding this issue, we conclude that the trial court's determination that the evidence could be admitted was not error. We agree with the trial judge's ruling that Garrett's testimony had relevance to show the escapees' states of mind at the time of the criminal episode involving the shooting in Tallahassee. We further agree with the trial judge in his overruling the section 90.403 objection in the context of the evidence already admitted in the trial. Moreover, the trial judge did not allow the details of the escape to become a focus of the trial. Thus, we conclude that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying this objection. Accordingly, we determine that Jones has failed to demonstrate prejudice. Even if we were to accept that the trial judge's section 90.403 ruling was erroneous and appellate counsel's performance was deficient for failing to raise this point, the other evidence in the record, including Harris's eyewitness testimony, would have made such error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Atkins v. Dugger, 541 So.2d 1165, 1167 (Fla.1989) (appellate counsel not ineffective for failing to raising an issue with little or no merit on appeal). Similarly, we find meritless Jones's next contention that appellate counsel should have raised as an appellate point the admission of various photographs found at the crime scene. The trial judge allowed into evidence photographs found in the car used by the escapees that displayed Jones, Griffin, and Goins together with guns and money. Trial counsel objected to the photos on relevance and unfair prejudice grounds and raised an objection to one photo on the added ground that the photo suggested other crimes. The trial judge admitted the photos, determining that the guns depicted in the photos were similar to guns that were used in the murder and found in or near the car in which Jones was riding at the time of the murder. [10] The trial judge excluded the writings on the photos. The trial judge also excluded photos that contained what appeared to be machine guns, finding that the prejudicial value of these photos substantially outweighed any probative value. As with the prior evidentiary issue, we conclude that the trial judge did not commit harmful error in admitting the photos. The trial judge made a reasoned choice when he excluded some of the photos. Those which were admitted were relevant to the issues concerning whether it was the escapees who shot Officer Ponce de Leon rather than another assailant, as contended by Jones. Even if the admission of the photos were considered to be error, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Jones is unable to successfully demonstrate that habeas relief is warranted on this issue.