Opinion ID: 1826001
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Failure to Argue Motions

Text: Stephens contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to argue three specific motions: (1) motion for judgment of acquittal; (2) motion for a new trial; and (3) motion for a change of venue. Stephens fails to meet the Strickland standard because he fails to show that had counsel argued these motions more vigorously than simply making a bare-bones motion, the trial court would have granted them. We addressed the trial court's denial of all three motions in Stephens' direct appeal and found all three claims to be without merit. With regard to the motion for judgment of acquittal, we found that there was sufficient evidence to support Stephens' conviction for first-degree felony murder. Stephens, 787 So.2d at 753. With regard to the motion for a new trial, we found that [t]he manifest weight of the evidence proves, at a minimum, that Stephens committed felony murder. Id. at 754. Finally, with regard to the motion for a change of venue, we held that Stephens failed to allege facts indicating abnormal pretrial publicity. Id. at 757. Because we rejected all three claims on the merits in Stephens' direct appeal, Stephens fails to satisfy the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance of counsel. See Melendez v. State, 612 So.2d 1366, 1369 (Fla.1992) (when this Court has previously rejected the substantive claim on the merits about which the defendant takes issue during postconviction proceedings in the guise of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to make the meritless argument). Accordingly, the trial court properly denied relief on this claim.