Opinion ID: 1802709
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Failure to Question the General Reliability of Fingerprint Evidence

Text: Additionally, Jimenez asserts that trial counsel was ineffective due to the failure to question the general reliability of fingerprint evidence. A federal district court in Pennsylvania has issued an order in an unrelated casei.e., United States v. Llera Plaza , Nos. Cr. XX-XXX-XX, XX-XXX-XX, & XX-XXX-XX (E.D.Pa. Jan. 7, 2002) supposedly establishing a basis for trial counsel to attack the reliability of fingerprint evidence here. This subclaim is procedurally barred. First, the fingerprint-evidence order did not establish a fundamental constitutional right that should receive retroactive application. This order was subsequently vacated by the same federal district court. See United States v. Llera Plaza, 188 F.Supp.2d 549, 576 (E.D.Pa.2002). Second, this subclaim is not based on newly discovered evidence. For the motion to be considered timely, Jimenez was required to have filed the successive rule 3.851 motion within one year of when the subclaim became discoverable through due diligence. Here, the order from the federal district court upon which Jimenez relies was dated January 7, 2002. Thus, more than one year elapsed between that date and when Jimenez filed his successive rule 3.851 motion on April 28, 2005. Even without this procedural bar, the claim is without merit. Again, the fingerprint-evidence order that Jimenez advances was subsequently vacated by the same federal district court. We conclude that trial counsel was not deficient for the failure to pursue a theory that is based upon a now-vacated order. [6]