Opinion ID: 1598027
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Ineffective AssistanceVoluntary Intoxication Defense

Text: Heath next claims ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt phase of his trial due to the failure to investigate and consider a defense of voluntary intoxication. After the decision in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), was issued by the United States Supreme Court, this Court explained that to establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, two requirements must be satisfied: First, the claimant must identify particular acts or omissions of the lawyer that are shown to be outside the broad range of reasonably competent performance under prevailing professional standards. Second, the clear, substantial deficiency shown must further be demonstrated to have so affected the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that confidence in the outcome is undermined. A court considering a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel need not make a specific ruling on the performance component of the test when it is clear that the prejudice component is not satisfied. Maxwell v. Wainwright, 490 So.2d 927, 932 (Fla.1986) (citations omitted). Both prongs of the Strickland test present mixed questions of law and fact, and, therefore, this Court employs a mixed standard of review. We defer to the circuit court's factual findings that are supported by competent, substantial evidence, but review the legal conclusions of the circuit court de novo. See Sochor v. State, 883 So.2d 766, 771-72 (Fla.2004). There is a strong presumption that the performance of trial counsel was not ineffective. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052. A fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel's challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel's perspective at the time. Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The defendant bears the burden to overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action `might be considered sound trial strategy.' Id. (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101, 76 S.Ct. 158, 100 L.Ed. 83 (1955)). We have held that strategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if alternative courses have been considered and rejected and counsel's decision was reasonable under the norms of professional conduct. Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037, 1048 (Fla.2000). We conclude that Heath has failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance on this claim. During the evidentiary hearing, trial counsel testified that he and Heath met numerous times when formulating his defense. His attorney testified that they specifically discussed a voluntary intoxication defense. Counsel stated that he felt the alibi defense was much stronger than an intoxication defense for two reasons. First, Heath never once acknowledged to counsel that he was present at the crime scene. Instead, Heath consistently insisted that he was not culpable because he was not there. Moreover, there were witnesses whose testimony supported this defense. During trial, one inmate testified that Kenneth informed him that he (Kenneth) had killed Sheridan, and Heath was not present. A second inmate testified that Kenneth stated he shot Sheridan a couple of times and then cut his throat because he pissed me off, he wouldn't die. Finally, a third inmate testified that when Kenneth returned from a meeting with his lawyer, he was very angry because he said that Heath would not lie for him. Second, counsel testified that he did not believe an intoxication defense was viable because it's a very difficult defense for a jury to accept, particularly in serious when serious criminal activity is alleged.... It's just been my experience that people do not accept someone not taking responsibility due to voluntary intoxication. The attorney also explained that he does not believe in presenting multiple inconsistent defenses because he feels it harms the credibility of the defense team: You can't take one position and then say, well, if you don't believe that, here's my second argument. It just does not work. You lose credibility. And in my experience, every jury trial is a battle, at least in part, for credibility. Finally, counsel testified that he did not feel an intoxication defense was viable because evidence reflected that, around the time of the murder, Heath and Kenneth were making decisions and driving an automobile. [7] Based on these two factors, trial counsel chose to exclusively pursue an alibi defense and contend that Kenneth was implicating Heath solely to obtain the benefit of a plea bargain that spared him from the death penalty. A review of the closing statements during trial reflects this defense strategy: You know, one thing that [Kenneth] said, too, sums up the whole case. If he would have gotten on that stand and told you, Ronnie wasn't there, he knew he would face the possibility of the death penalty then, if he said that. So could he [say] itwould he say it? Could this thief, liar, and murderer say that? He's doing it to save himself. Before there was any plea-deal, what did he say? He told the police, Ronnie wasn't there. He told Wilbur Johnson, Ronnie was there at the bar; he didn't go with me; I was alone when I committed the crime. And what changed? The plea-deal? And the story changed. Just enough to shift some blame: Ronnie told me to do it. Ronnie told me to do it. .... So can you be so sure of Kenny's testimony to bet a human life on it? Did he not have the greatest reason to lie? Self-preservation? Self-preservation just shift the blame a little bit; he didn't like Ronnie anyway. That's reasonable doubt. No evidence, not one bit of evidence given to you supports Kenny's story. Not one. There is no physical evidence. None. Trial counsel testified during the evidentiary hearing that Heath agreed with a defense that he was not present during the murder, that Kenneth only told him about the killing after it occurred, and that Kenneth was lying because he had arranged a plea bargain with the State. In light of the evidence offered during the evidentiary hearing, we conclude that trial counsel's performance was not deficient for the failure to present an intoxication defense. Heath presented no evidence during the evidentiary hearing to negate trial counsel's testimony that a voluntary intoxication defense was considered, but ultimately rejected, or to dispute that Heath agreed with his attorney's decision to pursue the alibi defense. Since Heath never admitted being at the crime scene, it would have been inconsistent for trial counsel to argue that he was present and assisted in the murder of Sheridan, but was too intoxicated to know what he was doing. Further, the decision to not present inconsistent defenses for fear of harming credibility with the jury was a matter of trial strategy. ( See Remeta v. Dugger, 622 So.2d 452, 455 (Fla.1993) (trial counsel not ineffective for making a tactical decision not to present a voluntary intoxication defense where the theory of the defense was that an accomplice was the primary perpetrator and trigger man in the killing [and a]n intoxication defense would be inconsistent with Remeta's contention that he did not commit the crime)(quoting trial court's order)). Moreover, witnesses were available who could (and did) testify in favor of Heath's alibi defense. Cf. id. at 455 (The decision not to present a voluntary intoxication defense was a tactical one based on what Remeta's counsel felt the facts of the case supported.). The fact that this defense strategy was ultimately unsuccessful with the jury does not render counsel's performance deficient. See Johnson v. State, 769 So.2d 990, 1001 (Fla.2000) (Simply because the ... defense did not work, it does not mean that the theory of the defense was flawed. (quoting trial court's order)). In light of the foregoing, we affirm the holding of the postconviction court that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to present a voluntary intoxication defense.