Opinion ID: 1802709
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Failure to Present Evidence With Regard to Baron

Text: Jimenez also asserts that trial counsel was ineffective due to the failure to present evidence that the note in Baron's desk calendar with regard to a conversation with Jimenezi.e., the statement of Jimenez that the police wanted to talk to him concerning a stabbingappeared to correspond to October 9. This would contradict the claim of Baron that this conversation occurred on October 5. If the conversation instead occurred on October 9, this would support the conclusion that Jimenez could have learned of the stabbing from another source as more neighbors had learned of the cause of death by October 9 (e.g., Taranco learned that Minas's murder was by stabbing on October 7). This subclaim is procedurally barred because it is not based on newly discovered evidence. Instead, on March 23, 1993, Baron was deposed by Jimenez's counsel, and she stated that the note in her calendar accidentally appeared to correspond with October 9, rather than the correct date of October 5. Jimenez's postconviction counsel had access to this evidence prior to filing the amended rule 3.850 motion. Even without this procedural bar, the subclaim is without merit. In a pretrial deposition, Baron stated that her case notes accurately reflected that she had this conversation with Jimenez on October 5 at 1:30 p.m. Again, the conversation appeared to correspond to October 9 because she had just written her notes where her hand fell on the desk calendar during the conversation. Thus, trial counsel was not deficient for the failure to impeach Baron with the desk calendar because there was direct testimony which addressed why the note of the conversation appeared to correspond with October 9.