Opinion ID: 1611770
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to Introduce Codefendant Paul's Life Sentence

Text: Cole next claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce into evidence codefendant Paul's life sentence. Cole submits that the jury would have probably sentenced Cole to life had the jury known of the disparate sentence. We agree with the State that this issue is procedurally barred, as we addressed the disparate treatment argument on direct appeal and found it to be without merit. See Cole, 701 So.2d at 852 (With respect to the disparate treatment, we agree with the trial court's conclusion that since Cole was the dominant actor and the one who committed the actual murder, the codefendant's life sentence was not a mitigating factor.). Moreover, it is clear from the on-the-record statements by Cole and his counsel during trial that the decision not to put on this evidence was influenced by the fact that presenting such evidence would have opened the door to other, harmful evidence. Specifically, the State would have then been permitted to call witnesses to explain the difference between the actions of Paul and Cole. See Gore v. State, 706 So.2d 1328, 1335-36 (Fla.1997). In view of the present record, Cole has no basis upon which to claim this decision was a result of an error by his trial counsel. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (The reasonableness of counsel's actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant's own statements or actions.).