Opinion ID: 1773959
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ineffective assistance at the guilt phase

Text: In order to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must prove two elements: First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also Rutherford v. State, 727 So.2d 216 (Fla.1998); Rose v. State, 675 So.2d 567 (Fla.1996); Wilson v. Wainwright, 474 So.2d 1162 (Fla.1985); Johnson v. Wainwright, 463 So.2d 207 (Fla.1985). In determining deficiency, 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. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052; see also Cherry v. State, 659 So.2d 1069, 1073 (Fla.1995). Moreover, counsel's deficiency prejudices defendant only when the defendant is deprived of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Shere raises several claims based on ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt phase. Some of these are procedurally barred, [9] but others merit discussion. Shere asserts that defense counsel was ineffective for calling Detective Arick as a defense witness because his testimony opened the door for the State to draw from the detective the portions of Demo's statements that conflicted with Shere's account, statements that the jury otherwise would never have heard. After a review of the proceedings below, we can find no error in the way the trial court dealt with this issue in its order. It provided in relevant part: The record of the trial and the testimony presented during the evidentiary hearing clearly establish that the decision to offer evidence of the codefendant's admissions regarding his own involvement in the murder was a tactical judgment on the part of defendant's trial counsel. At the conclusion of the State's case the defendant was in a desperate situation. Although the defendant blamed the murder on his codefendant in his statement to law enforcement, the State also introduced evidence at trial that the defendant gave several inconsistent statements after his arrest. The State also established that the defendant told his girlfriend [Heidi Greulich] that he had killed the victim himself and that he told a friend, Ray Pruden, that he had shot the victim ten or fifteen times, that he had buried the victim where nobody would find him, and that the defendant had made no mention of any involvement by the codefendant. The physical evidence, including projectiles removed from the victim's body that came from defendant's gun, was extremely damaging. The State's case-in-chief did not leave any doubt that the defendant played a major role in the murder and subsequent coverup. It is likely that nothing the defendant or his attorneys could have done at that point would have avoided a conviction for first-degree murder. They had a choice of resting and reserving their right to opening and closing final arguments, or of mounting some kind of defense, weak as it was. Other than the order of final arguments, defendant did not have anything to lose. If counsel had made a careless or unconcerned decision to introduce the evidence, the court would be concerned. The court would also be concerned if the decision was made by an uninformed and inexperienced attorney. However, defendant was represented by a highly competent and ethical trial attorney who has dedicated his life to defending people who are charged with crimes. He was assisted in trial by an excellent associate. He had the benefit of advice from a highly experienced investigator and experienced attorneys working in his own office. They had the assistance of a reliable mental health professional that his office uses in many cases. They investigated every avenue of defense and mitigation suggested by the evidence, and all information they were furnished by the defendant, his family, his wife, and the psychologist. Counsel made the tactical decision after considering all of the evidence against his client and after considering all other alternatives. See State v. Bolender, 503 So.2d 1247, 1250 (Fla.1987) (Strategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance if alternative courses of action have been considered and rejected). Although this strategy may appear futile, this court has seen weaker arguments prevail in front of a jury of untrained citizens. Finally, the fact that introducing portions of the codefendant's statement opened the door to other inculpatory evidence was not of much consequence given the fact that the defendant's statements to law enforcement and his friends were already before the jury and those statements portrayed him as a cold and ruthless killer. The court finds that the defense attorney's decision to introduce the codefendant's statements was not a clear, substantial deficiency that was outside the broad range of reasonably competent performance under prevailing professional standards. Maxwell, 490 So.2d at 932. The codefendant's statement confirmed that he fired the fatal shot and that the defendant did not act alone. The defense believed these facts would mitigate against a conviction of first-degree murder and more importantly, against a recommendation of death. Also, no matter how the defendant or his attorneys tried to rationalize his involvement in the crime, there was overwhelming evidence that the defendant was guilty of first degree murder. The defendant did not prove that his attorneys' strategy prejudiced the outcome of the trial or that it so affected the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that confidence in the outcome is undermined. Maxwell, 490 So.2d at 932. Order at 9-12 (citations omitted). [10] At the evidentiary hearing, defense counsel testified concerning his decision to call Detective Arick as a witness: No, it was not a mistake. It may have turned out to be a mistake, but at the time of trial, I thought it was right. This testimony is important because [j]udicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential. It is all too tempting for a defendant to second-guess counsel's assistance after conviction or adverse sentence, and it is all too easy for a court, examining counsel's defense after it has proved unsuccessful, to conclude that a particular act or omission of counsel was unreasonable. 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. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (citation omitted); see also Cherry v. State, 659 So.2d 1069, 1073 (Fla.1995) (concluding standard is not how current counsel would have proceeded in hindsight). Moreover, as referenced by the trial court, defense counsel specifically testified that although he consciously recognized Demo's statements were a double-edged sword, he believed that Demo's statement confessing to firing the fatal shot and confirming that Shere did not act alone would mitigate against a conviction of first-degree murder and a recommendation of death in Shere's case. Shere also argues that counsel's decision prejudiced him because it damaged his credibility before the trial judge and the jury. However, the record, and in particular Detective Arick's testimony on direct examination as a State witness, show that counsel was handicapped by the fact that Shere had completely changed his story. When first questioned by police, Shere said that he knew nothing about the murder. Upon further questioning, however, he testified to the accounts of what had transpired and led police to the buried body and the weapon used in the murder. As such, his credibility before the judge and jury had already been damaged. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court's factual findings and legal conclusion that counsel's decision was a tactical one that did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel does not constitute reversible error. Shere also argues that defense counsel was deficient in failing to act as an advocate. Except for Shere's claim that defense counsel pressured him into deciding not to testify, the remaining claims raised under this heading are procedurally barred because they were raised for the first time on appeal. See Doyle, 526 So.2d at 911. [11] Again, the trial court comprehensively dealt with Shere's claim in its order: Defendant's trial attorneys testified that they allowed the defendant to make the final decision on whether he should testify in the guilt stage of the trial. They counseled with him on this issue on many occasions, even arranging a mock direct and cross examination to illustrate the problems with his testimony. The defendant was an erratic and difficult client who insisted on repeatedly changing his version of the murder. He even told Dr. James Larson, the expert he retained for the R. 3.850 proceedings, different versions of what happened that evening. His attorneys, their investigator, and the Chief Assistant Public Defender advised the defendant against testifying. That advice was a reasonable, tactical decision that was in the realm of counsel's professional judgement-not ineffective assistance of counsel. Before the defense rested the attorneys consulted with the defendant again and advised him that the time had come to decide whether to testify. He agreed that he would not. As a result of the defendant's comments to this court at the conclusion of the penalty phase of the trial both of defendant's attorneys prepared written memoranda of law concerning the details of their discussion with the defendant regarding the issue of the defendant testifying during the guilt phase of the trial. The documents, prepared shortly after trial, are consistent with each other and the attorneys' testimony in the R. 3.850 hearing. The defendant's testimony during the R. 3.850 hearing was not credible. Furthermore, he did not present any specific evidence or argument to show how his testimony in the guilt phase would have improved his chances of being found not guilty of first-degree murder. Order at 7-8. As further proof that defense counsel was deficient in this regard, Shere points out that defense counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing that Shere did not understand the decision of whether or not to testify. However, this statement was made by co-counsel, Ms. Buckingham Toner, the attorney who sat as second chair during the trial, and must be examined in the broader context of her entire testimony. Immediately before the cited statement, Ms. Buckingham Toner testified that she thought Shere understood he had a right to testify or not testify, but obviously he did not know all the different nuances of the different cases or sophisticated legal strategy in the courtroom. This language appears to refer to the understandable difficulty of any person's ability to know the rules of evidence and the effect of the testimony on the outcome of the trial, rather than to any unique or specific unreasonable inability of Shere. As noted above, we find that the trial court adequately analyzed this issue and we find no error.