Opinion ID: 1643011
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Promise to See Bryant's Mother

Text: Bryant also claims that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue on appeal that Bryant's confession was given in exchange for a promise that he would be allowed to see his mother. Bryant cannot show prejudice on this issue because the trial court properly denied the claim. Appellate counsel is under no duty to assert a meritless claim. See Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1070 (Fla.2000) (Appellate counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to raise an issue which is without merit.). Although Bryant claims that he confessed in exchange for the promise of seeing his mother, he cites nothing in the record except the following excerpt from the testimony of Sergeant Robert Brand: [Brand]: After his rights were read to him, Mr. Bryant denied the allegation because we told him he was under arrest for murder and robbery. He denied it. We then confronted him with a statement that we have from one of our witnesses.... He requested to listen to a portion of the taped statement that we had mentioned to him, which we honored that request. We went in and played it for him. That at that point basically he paused for a second, he turned around and looked at me, he said, so do you think I did it? Said yes. He then asked Detective Hartman, he said, Craig, do you think I did it? He said, yes. He then said that he would go ahead and tell us, actually give us a statement but he wanted to talk to his mother first. [Attorney for State]: Did he condition the giving of a statement upon seeing his parents, seeing his mother? [Brand]: No. He said he would go ahead and tell us, go ahead and give us a statement but he wanted to talk to his mother. I went ahead and honored that request. Hartman recalled the same moment as follows: [Bryant] was quiet for maybe a minute or so, in thatsomewhere in that area, and then said to us, I want to see my mom and then I will tell you exactly what happened. Based on this testimony, the trial judge found that there was no promise in exchange for a confession and that allowing Bryant to see his family was an accommodation and an act of courtesy and kindness on the part of the police. Nothing in the record contradicts this conclusion. The police never demanded a statement in exchange for Bryant seeing his family. Bryant himself is the one who requested that his mother be brought in to see him. See Anderson v. State, 863 So.2d 169, 183 (Fla.2003) (rejecting a similar claim where the police agreed to a request to call the defendant's mother, but the police action could not have given [defendant] the impression that the opportunity to contact his mother was contingent on providing statements). There is further support in the record that Bryant's statement was voluntary and not made in exchange for any promise. In his taped statement, Bryant stated, Yeah, I had a right not to say nothing but what, the speechthe testimony I give was of my own free will, it wasn't no promises or nothing like that. The interrogating officer then asked point blank, We didn't promise you anything? Bryant responded No. This Court has stated the standard for a voluntary confession: It is well established that a confession cannot be obtained through direct or implied promises. In order for a confession to be voluntary, the totality of the circumstances must indicate that such confession is the result of a free and rational choice. Johnson v. State, 696 So.2d 326, 329 (Fla.1997). The totality of the circumstances in this case demonstrates that Bryant's confession was not made in exchange for a promise to see his mother. Because the trial court's decision was correct, Bryant cannot show that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to present this claim on appeal.