Opinion ID: 1561405
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Ineffective Assistance Jury Selection

Text: During voir dire, the following dialogue occurred: STATE: Mr. Wilkinson, you indicated you probably would not make it back to jury duty again. Is there anything in particular that would interfere with you being a good juror in this case for this week? VENIREMAN: Well, I don't know about this week or any other week. But the only thing I know for sure is the justice system sometimes works in right ways and other times it don't. If a man is sentenced to die in the electric chair, I feel they ought to go ahead after a certain period of time and go ahead and electrocute the man and get it over with, not give him a lifetime or send them over there for years and years and years, cost the taxpayer. My opinion, too much money. (Clapping erupted by prospective jurors.) THE COURT: Please, we need to maintain order. This is not a rooting session. Floyd contends that the comment by the prospective juror and the outbreak of applause fatally tainted the prospective jury panel. According to Floyd, trial counsel failed to object or seek a new panel, which would have required the court to question the panel as a means to separate those members who had been affected by the comment and those who were not improperly impacted. Floyd contends that the failure of counsel to affirmatively act constituted deficient performance that prejudiced his trial. On direct appeal, no claim was raised with regard to the comment by prospective juror Wilkinson. Accordingly, any challenge to this comment at this time is procedurally barred. 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.). With regard to the ineffectiveness challenge, the postconviction court found that Floyd failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to demonstrate how trial counsel was deficient. We agree and conclude that, based upon this failure, Floyd has not satisfied the burden of proof on an ineffectiveness claim. See Morris, 931 So.2d at 828 (to establish a claim of ineffective assistance, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient (emphasis supplied) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052)). Accordingly, Floyd is not entitled to relief.