Opinion ID: 1922190
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ineffective Assistance Regarding Jailhouse Informant Randall James

Text: The next guilt-phase issue of ineffective assistance of counsel concerns trial counsel's handling of the proposed testimony of jailhouse informant Randall James. The background facts pertinent to this issue are set forth in our opinion on Derrick's first direct appeal: After the defense had presented two witnesses, they announced that they were calling Derrick to testify. At this point, the prosecutor announced that if Derrick testified that he had not committed the murder, he planned to call in rebuttal an inmate named Randall James. The prosecutor said that, after the first defense witness began to testify, he had received a note informing him that Detective Vaughn had just been told by James that Derrick told James that he had killed Sharma and that he would kill again. The prosecutor offered to make James available for a deposition. Derrick's attorneys, who were public defenders, requested a recess to determine what to do because their office also represented James and they were therefore concerned about the implications of cross-examining James. The prosecutor indicated that it was his understanding that James was willing to waive the attorney-client privilege. After the recess, the judge removed the public defender's office from representing James in an effort to alleviate the conflict. Continuing to express concern over the dual representation, Derrick's attorneys made a motion for mistrial which was denied. They then decided to rest without calling Derrick as a witness. The jury found Derrick guilty. Derrick's attorneys took James's deposition while the jury was deliberating. Derrick, 581 So.2d at 33-34 (footnotes omitted). As to the specifics of James's testimony, the State alleged that James would testify to the following conversation, in which James asked the defendant, What are you in here for? Derrick said, Murder to which James allegedly asked him, Did you do it? The State further alleged that Derrick responded, Yeah, I killed the motherfucker and I may kill again. Based on that representation by the State, trial counsel made a decision not to call Derrick, thereby avoiding this potentially devastating testimony in the guilt phase. Trial counsel ultimately deposed James before the penalty phase and discovered that James had a history of mental illness and was moved to the psychiatric ward after the alleged conversation with Derrick. Derrick cites a number of reasons for counsel's ineffectiveness as to this issue, including: the failure of trial counsel to depose James until after the conclusion of the guilt phase; an allegation that the jury overheard the substance of James's proposed testimony; and an alleged conflict of interest because Derrick's attorney from the Public Defender's Office was also representing James in a separate matter. To put this issue in proper context, it is important to stress that James never testified at the guilt phase because trial counsel decided not to call his client to testify when faced with his damaging testimony. Further, Derrick never alleges what he would have testified to if called to the stand and, given his confession, it is difficult to understand how his testimony would have been helpful to his defense. Moreover, this Court previously reviewed trial counsel's conduct in dealing with James's rebuttal testimony on direct appeal. In fact, we rejected the claim that the trial court failed to conduct a proper Richardson inquiry after the State revealed James as a potential witness. Derrick, 581 So.2d at 34. In rejecting the claim, this Court stated that trial counsel made a tactical decision to rely upon the prosecutor's representations of what James's testimony would be and advised Derrick not to testify. Id. at 35. By finding that this issue had previously been considered on direct appeal, the lower court correctly held that Derrick's claim should be denied. In essence, Derrick's claim is procedurally barred because it is merely a variant of the issues raised on direct appeal. Jones v. State, 949 So.2d 1021, 1033 (Fla.2006). Even assuming that trial counsel's failure to depose James rather than rely on the prosecutor's representations could be considered unreasonable, there is no basis to conclude that the failure to call Derrick in light of James's extremely damaging testimony was an unreasonable strategy. Although it is true that counsel could have deposed James and obtained potentially valuable impeachment evidence regarding his mental illness, impeachment alone would not have eliminated the damage that could have resulted from James's proposed testimony that Derrick admitted: Yeah, I killed the motherfucker and I may kill again. To the contrary, if trial counsel had called Derrick to testify and thus opened the door for James's damaging testimony, Derrick might well have had a valid claim that it was unreasonable strategy to allow him to testify. Further, we conclude as a matter of law that prejudice has not been established, i.e., our confidence in the outcome of the guilt phase has not been undermined. Had James testified in the guilt phase, such statements would only have added to the existing incriminating evidence against Derrick, including Lowry's testimony that Derrick admitted to the murder and Derrick's own confession. Importantly, none of the alleged claims of ineffectiveness would affect the admissibility of James's testimony, only the ability to impeach James if he had testified. Further, as stated previously, Derrick fails to allege in his postconviction motion what he would have testified to had he taken the stand in his own defense. In short, Derrick has failed to establish a basis for either deficiency or prejudice. Therefore, summary denial was proper because the record conclusively shows that Derrick is entitled to no relief. As to Derrick's assertion that the substance of James's testimony was announced in open court, the record affirmatively indicates that the jury was removed from the courtroom before any discussion of James's testimony took place. Derrick has not alleged any facts that would refute the record, showing that the jury was in the courtroom when James's testimony was discussed or that the jury overheard that testimony. Further, considering the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including Derrick's own confession, prejudice has not been established as a result of these alleged deficiencies in not deposing James in the guilt phase. Lastly, as to Derrick's claim that James's proposed testimony should have been excluded from the guilt phase because he and Derrick were represented by the same counsel, this claim should have been raised on direct appeal and is therefore procedurally barred. See Thompson v. State, 759 So.2d 650, 661 (Fla.2000) (supporting trial court's finding that conflict of interest claim should have been raised on direct appeal and was procedurally barred because the facts that formed the basis of the claim were known to the defendant at the time of the direct appeal). However, because the right to effective assistance of counsel encompasses the right to conflict-free counsel, Hunter v. State, 817 So.2d 786, 791 (Fla.2002), we also examine this claim on the merits. In a motion for postconviction relief, a defendant must establish both that there was an actual conflict of interest and that the conflict adversely affected counsel's performance. See id.; Quince v. State, 732 So.2d 1059, 1065 (Fla.1999). However, in this case, once the trial court removed counsel from representing James, any actual conflict of interest was eliminated. Further, even assuming an actual conflict existed, the defendant must also allege how the conflict adversely affected counsel's performance. See Hunter, 817 So.2d at 791. As to this prong, Derrick alleges that counsel's faulty advice not to testify arose from a conflict of interest. However, we reject as a matter of law the claim that a conflict of interest adversely affected counsel's performance for the same reasons we previously discussed in concluding that no prejudice could have resulted from the failure to depose James earlier. In short, even if counsel had advised Derrick to testify, James's rebuttal testimony would have been extremely damaging to Derrick's defense and there has been no allegation of how Derrick's proposed testimony would have in fact assisted his defense. We likewise reject Derrick's claim that the State's notice regarding the proposed guilt-phase testimony of Randall James amounted to prosecutorial misconduct in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). First, on direct appeal, we rejected that there was a Richardson violation in the trial court's treatment of Randall James's proposed testimony. See Derrick, 581 So.2d at 35 (We have never before held that a defendant was prejudiced by the late listing of a witness who never testifies at trial, and we decline to do so now.). Second, there cannot be a Giglio violation, which involves the knowing presentation of false testimony, because James never testified. Third, for the same reasons that we concluded that Derrick has not suffered prejudice from the proposed testimony of Randall James, Derrick has not established materiality under Brady. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (expressly applying the Strickland standard of reasonable probability to Brady cases); Cardona v. State, 826 So.2d 968, 973 (Fla. 2002). Because of the foregoing, the trial court was correct in finding that this claim did not warrant an evidentiary hearing and we affirm the denial.