Opinion ID: 1785882
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: larzelere's cross-appeal

Text: Larzelere cross-appeals, asserting that she is entitled a new guilt-phase trial because: (1) the postconviction trial court erred when it denied Larzelere's claim that the trial court's jury instructions constituted a constructive amendment or fatal variance to the indictment; (2) trial counsel was conflicted and ineffective during the guilt phase; and (3) the cumulative effect of procedural and substantive errors deprived Larzelere of a fundamentally fair trial.
Larzelere's argument that she is entitled to a new trial because the trial court's jury instructions and the State's closing arguments constituted a constructive amendment or a fatal variance to the indictment is procedurally barred because it could have been raised on direct appeal. See Harvey v. Dugger, 656 So.2d 1253, 1256 (Fla.1995) ([I]ssues that could have been, but were not, raised on direct appeal are not cognizable through collateral attack.). In her petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Larzelere properly raises her appellate counsel's failure to raise this preserved issue on direct appeal. We consider the issue in that context.

Larzelere argues that the trial court erred in denying her claim that Wilkins operated under a conflict of interest and was ineffective because he pursued his own financial and legal interests to the detriment of Larzelere's defense. Larzelere believes that Wilkins was conflicted because he could not have her declared indigent for purposes of costs without drawing attention to his impermissible contingency fee contract and because he did not want his eventual payment to be impacted by a claim by the county against any insurance proceeds collected by Larzelere. Larzelere asserts that Wilkins performed deficiently in that he failed to have her promptly declared indigent for costs, failed to consult and hire needed defense experts, and fired his investigator in an effort to minimize costs. This Court has explained that Florida follows the legal principles set forth in Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980), and Strickland, when analyzing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on a purported conflict of interest: [I]n order to establish an ineffectiveness claim premised on an alleged conflict of interest the defendant must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance. A lawyer suffers from an actual conflict of interest when he or she actively represents conflicting interests. To demonstrate an actual conflict, the defendant must identify specific evidence in the record that suggests that his or her interests were compromised. A possible, speculative or merely hypothetical conflict is insufficient to impugn a criminal conviction. [U]ntil a defendant shows that his counsel actively represented conflicting interests, he has not established the constitutional predicate for his claim of ineffective assistance. Sliney v. State, 944 So.2d 270, 279 (Fla. 2006) (citations omitted) (quoting Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 350, 100 S.Ct. 1708). Prejudice is presumed where an actual conflict is shown to have adversely affected a client's representation. Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 349-50, 100 S.Ct. 1708. The question of whether a defendant's counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel's performance is a mixed question of law and fact. Sliney, 944 So.2d at 279. Accordingly, this Court applies a mixed standard of review, deferring to the lower court's factual findings but reviewing its ultimate legal conclusions de novo. Coney, 845 So.2d at 133. In considering whether Wilkins operated under an actual conflict as defined by Cuyler, the trial court found that Wilkins' contract and investigator McDaniel's contract were not contingency fee arrangements and that the insurance proceeds would be sufficient to cover fees and costs as outlined in the contracts. Thus, the trial court held that Larzelere provided nothing but mere speculation that Wilkins failed to hire experts or seek indigency status because he wanted to maximize the amount of insurance proceeds he would receive. Postconviction Order II at 21. We affirm the trial court's denial of relief on this claim. We agree that Larzelere did not demonstrate that her counsel had an actual conflict of interest because she failed to identify specific evidence in the record that suggests that . . . her interests were impaired or compromised for the benefit of her attorney. Herring v. State, 730 So.2d 1264, 1267 (Fla.1998); see also Brown v. State, 894 So.2d 137, 159 (Fla. 2004) (finding defendant failed to prove actual conflict where trial court made factual finding that counsel did not attempt to gain proprietary interest in defendant's life story, recordings, and poetry until after close of representation and defendant did not identify specific evidence in the record that suggested that his interests were impaired or compromised for the benefit of the lawyer or another party). Wilkins testified that his contract, which was signed by Larzelere and her sister, Jeanette Atkinson, provided for a $100,000 retainer, $3000 per day while in trial, and costs. Wilkins believed that he would be able to collect his fee and costs against any of Larzelere's and Atkinson's assets, but anticipated that he likely would be paid from the insurance proceeds. Wilkins admitted that there was a risk of nonpayment. However, he consulted trusted civil attorneys regarding Atkinson's likelihood of collecting on the insurance policies, and they informed him that her chances of collecting a good portion of the two to three million dollars were substantial. This appraisal alleviated Wilkins' doubts enough for him to take the case under these terms. [9] Rodney Lilly, one of the consultants, testified at the evidentiary hearing and confirmed that he told Wilkins that the insurance case was worth pursuing, even on a contingency fee basis because the insurer would have to prove fraud in the inducement to avoid paying the policies, a difficult claim to prove. Lilly's assessment of the insurance case implies that it would likewise be worth pursuing the criminal case in hopes of being paid from the insurance proceeds. Moreover, Gladys Jackson, Wilkins' office manager and bookkeeper at the time of Larzelere's case, testified that she did not recall ever telling Wilkins that a requested action, such as taking a deposition, could not be done in the Larzelere case due to insufficient funds. Thus, Larzelere did not prove that Wilkins failed to hire experts and have her declared indigent because of a financial conflict resulting from the fee arrangement and Wilkins' personal financial problems. She did not prove that Wilkins had an interest in not hiring experts, other than that which any attorney paid by a client or third party would have, because he believed his costs would be paid. As for investigator McDaniel's contract, Wilkins testified that he did not ask Volusia County to pay the investigative expenses because McDaniel agreed to be privately retained and paid from the insurance proceeds. McDaniel first testified that he was to be paid from Wilkins' retainer, but he later testified, consistent with Wilkins' testimony, that he was hired directly by Larzelere, Jason, and Atkinson, and was to be paid from the insurance proceeds. McDaniel admitted that he agreed to be paid as the money came in from the insurance policies. The record also refutes Larzelere's suggestion that Wilkins fired McDaniel in order to minimize costs. McDaniel testified that Wilkins and Howes would not pay for him to go to California to interview Norman Karn and Ronald Lee Hayden, state witnesses, as he requested to do. However, McDaniel acknowledged that he and his company were terminated for not following Wilkins' and Howes' instructions, rather than due to a dispute over expenses. This evidence supports the trial court's finding that Larzelere failed to prove that McDaniel was fired due to a financial conflict of interest. Further, even if the decision to fire McDaniel was purely financial, Larzelere did not demonstrate that this act was adverse to her representation because the evidence shows that Wilkins and Howes hired another investigator, Don Carpenter, to continue McDaniel's work. Overall, Larzelere failed to show that any interest her attorney may have had in minimizing costs was an actual, not merely potential, conflict that adversely affected her representation.
Larzelere also argues that her counsel was simply ineffective. In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that trial counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Both prongs of the Strickland test generally present mixed questions of law and fact, requiring this Court to employ a mixed standard of review, deferring to the circuit court's factual findings that are supported by competent, substantial evidence, but reviewing the circuit court's legal conclusions de novo. See Sochor, 883 So.2d at 771-72. Larzelere presented a great deal of evidence regarding Wilkins' alcohol use. She also presented evidence that he was engaging in tax evasion and money laundering on behalf of other clients while acting as her counsel. She presented evidence that Wilkins may have been having financial difficulties at that time and that he answered a complaint by The Florida Bar just days before giving his closing argument in the guilt phase of her trial. However, to prove that counsel acted deficiently, a defendant 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. Dufour v. State, 905 So.2d 42, 51 (Fla.2005) (quoting Maxwell v. Wainwright, 490 So.2d 927, 932 (Fla.1986)). The only specific errors alleged are that Wilkins failed to consult or hire certain expert witnesses that might have assisted the defense. Larzelere argues that Wilkins was ineffective because, while intoxicated and distracted by financial and legal problems, he made the following prejudicial errors: (a) he failed to consult a mental health expert regarding both phases of the trial; (b) he failed to consult and call a concrete expert and failed to introduce a report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding the concrete samples; (c) he failed to consult and call an insurance expert to testify that Dr. Larzelere's life insurance coverage was reasonable given the family's circumstances; and (d) he failed to consult and call a handwriting expert to examine Dr. Larzelere's will. After reviewing the record, we find no error in the trial court's determination that Larzelere failed to demonstrate that Wilkins was ineffective for not calling such expert witnesses. Larzelere did not offer evidence of what these experts would have opined regarding the facts and circumstances of her case, and given the overwhelming evidence of Larzelere's guilt, even favorable testimony by these sorts of experts would not have undermined our confidence in the verdict. Postconviction Order II at 21.
The trial court was correct in finding that Larzelere was not prejudiced by not having the assistance of a psychologist or psychiatrist during the guilt phase of her trial. A mental health practitioner's evaluation of Larzelere's mental state would not have significantly contributed to her defense because there was no reasonable basis for arguing that this crime was a second-degree murder. The State presented evidence that Larzelere planned her husband's murder over a period of time. We agree that there was competent, substantial evidence upon which the trial court could conclude that no reasonable person could have found this to be a spontaneous rather than a premeditated crime. Further, none of the psychological experts called at the evidentiary hearing testified that Larzelere was mentally incompetent.
The trial court did not err in holding that Larzelere failed to prove that Wilkins was ineffective for not consulting or hiring a concrete expert to testify regarding whether the concrete encasing the alleged murder weapon matched the concrete found in a cooking pot in Larzelere's basement. During the evidentiary hearing, Larzelere called John M. Whelan II, a chemistry graduate student at the University of South Florida, to testify regarding the FBI's report about the concrete samples. The trial court ruled that Whelan was not qualified to give an expert opinion on concrete but allowed Larzelere to proffer Whelan's testimony. Larzelere did not challenge on appeal the trial court's decision to not admit Whelan's testimony, and therefore Whelan's testimony is not before this Court. Larzelere has not shown counsel to be ineffective for not calling a concrete expert because she had not demonstrated what an individual qualified as a concrete expert would have testified to in this case or how such testimony would cast doubt on her guilt. Larzelere's claim that Wilkins should have called the FBI agent who analyzed the concrete samples and introduced into evidence the FBI's report that found that the samples could not be conclusively matched is more fully developed in the record. While Larzelere did not call the FBI agent, she did introduce the report into evidence. The report summarizes the comparison of sample Q1, which was a sample of the cement found in Larzelere's home, and sample K1, which was a sample of the cement encasing the alleged murder weapon recovered from a creek. The report states: The Q1 and K1 cements differ in color, and exhibit some difference in particle size distribution and mortar composition. However, the K1 cement was exposed to potentially extreme weathering conditions which can affect the comparative properties of the cement. Although it is unlikely that weathering is responsible for the differences observed between the Q1 and K1 cements in this case, it [cannot] be totally eliminated as a possibility. Neither party introduced this report into evidence during trial, although during his closing argument, Wilkins argued that the State failed to prove that the cement found in Larzelere's home matched the cement encasing the alleged murder weapon. Larzelere claims that effective counsel would have supported this argument by calling the FBI agent and introducing the report. Again, we agree that Larzelere has not demonstrated prejudice. As William Lasley explained, evidence separating Larzelere from the alleged murder weapon would have theoretically aided her defense. However, the trial court correctly found that defense counsel's extensive cross-examination of the State's informant witnesses, Heidle and Palmieri, and his closing argument did challenge the State's theory that the guns were encased in concrete and dumped in a creek at Larzelere's direction. Given the totality of the evidence, not introducing the indefinite report does not undermine this Court's confidence in the verdict.
The trial court summarily denied Larzelere's claim that Wilkins was ineffective for failing to consult and call an insurance expert to testify that the Larzelere family had a reasonable amount of life insurance coverage. The trial court held that such testimony would not likely impact the verdict because the reasonableness of the insurance coverage would not discount the State's theory that Larzelere killed her husband to obtain the insurance proceeds and because the State conceded during closing argument that Dr. Larzelere participated in the acquisition of the insurance policies. We find no reversible error. During his representation of Larzelere, Wilkins consulted two attorneys, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Lilly, whom he considered to be experts in insurance. Lilly, who represented Larzelere's sister, Jeanette Atkinson, in the insurance litigation, testified that he prepared a chart explaining the relationships between the different insurance policies for Wilkins' use in the criminal case. Wilkins used these charts during his opening argument and asserted during both his opening and closing arguments that the State's motive theory did not make sense. He argued that the insurance policies were reasonable for the family, that Dr. Larzelere made $600,000 a year and let Larzelere buy anything that she wanted, and that Larzelere would have made more money by divorcing Dr. Larzelere than by murdering him. While Wilkins did not call a defense witness regarding the insurance policies, he did cross-examine the insurance agents called by the State. His performance was not unreasonable. Moreover, the trial court properly denied this claim because Larzelere did not demonstrate that she was prejudiced by any failure to discredit the State's financial motive theory. The State's first three witnesses, Norman Karn, Ronald Lee Hayden, and Philip Langston, all testified that Larzelere approached them about killing her husband. Karn, who dated Larzelere in early 1989, testified that Larzelere [i]n so many words told him that she wanted Dr. Larzelere dead. He also testified that Larzelere solicited his friend Hayden to kill Dr. Larzelere. Hayden testified next and confirmed that Larzelere asked him if he knew anyone who would kill her husband because she was unable to divorce Dr. Larzelere and wanted to marry Karn. Next, Langston, who met Larzelere in 1989 or 1990 and became romantically involved with her, testified that on one occasion Larzelere told him that she had to get rid of Norm. When he said that he was not capable of murder, she asked if he knew anyone who would kill Dr. Larzelere for $50,000.
The trial court denied Larzelere's claim that Wilkins was ineffective for failing to consult a handwriting expert to examine Dr. Larzelere's will, which left his estate to Larzelere, because there was no reasonable possibility that such evidence would have changed the outcome of Larzelere's trial. We agree that Larzelere was not prejudiced by her counsel's failure to call a handwriting expert. Larzelere claims that such an expert could have refuted the State's accusation that the will was forged. Yet, the probative issue at trial was whether Dr. Larzelere knew that he was signing a will when he signed the document, not whether he actually signed it. [10] A handwriting expert could not offer an opinion on whether Dr. Larzelere knew that he was signing a will, and defense counsel did call Leroy Mahler, the notary public who claimed to have witnessed Dr. Larzelere's signature. We agree that Wilkins' failure to call a handwriting expert was not prejudicial.
The record does not demonstrate any actual conflict, other than the dual representation of Larzelere and Jason, which Larzelere waived and this Court affirmed on direct appeal, or any specific prejudicial deficiencies in counsel's performance. Thus, we affirm the trial court's denial of this claim.
Larzelere argues that she is entitled to a new trial due to her attorneys' joint representation of Larzelere's codefendant, Wilkins' alcohol and drug abuse, his inexperience in capital cases, his financial misdealings, his contingency fee contract that dissuaded him from approaching the court for costs and expenses, his failure to consult experts prior to trial, the circumstantial nature of the case, and the constructive amendments and fatal variances to the indictment. Larzelere's claim is without merit because each of her arguments is either without merit or procedurally barred. See Melendez v. State, 718 So.2d 746, 749 (Fla.1998) (holding that where claims were either meritless or procedurally barred, there was no cumulative effect to consider). This Court found on direct appeal that the trial judge met the burden of assuring that appellant's [pretrial] waiver was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, and that he properly denied Larzelere's post-trial motions to discharge counsel because she failed to show how she would be prejudiced by counsel's continued dual representation of Larzelere and Jason. Larzelere, 676 So.2d at 403. Also on direct appeal, the Court found the evidence sufficient to support Larzelere's conviction. Id. at 406. As for Larzelere's postconviction claims, this Court has affirmed the trial court's holding that Larzelere's claim that Wilkins was actually conflicted or ineffective due to his alcohol and drug abuse, his financial misdealings, his alleged contingency fee contract, and his failure to consult defense experts is without merit and that her constructive amendment claim is procedurally barred. Larzelere is not entitled to relief on the basis of cumulative error.