Opinion ID: 1133749
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial Counsel's Failure to Adequately Prepare for Trial

Text: Hannon claims that the trial court erred in summarily denying his claim that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately prepare for trial. Hannon's argument on this issue consists of a single paragraph in which he merely lists the following allegationscounsel's failure to obtain Hannon's rap sheet, failure to review photographs before trial, failure to cross-examine and impeach state witnesses, and failure to adequately question jurors regarding their views on capital punishmentand then simply concludes that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Hannon in effect has chosen to contest the trial court's summary denial of this claim by merely listing these allegations without any supportive argument or authority with regard to the manner in which trial counsel's conduct was deficient or the prejudice he sustained. This Court has previously determined that similar speculative, unsupported arguments of this type are improper and for which no relief is available. See Cooper v. State, 856 So.2d 969, 977 n. 7 (Fla.2003) (rejecting similar argument as insufficient for consideration); Sweet v. State, 810 So.2d 854, 870 (Fla.2002) ([B]ecause on appeal Sweet simply recites these claims from his postconviction motion in a sentence or two, without elaboration or explanation, we conclude that these instances of alleged ineffectiveness are not preserved for appellate review.); see also Duest v. Dugger, 555 So.2d 849, 852 (Fla.1990) (The purpose of an appellate brief is to present arguments in support of the points on appeal. Merely making reference to arguments below without further elucidation does not suffice to preserve issues. . . .). Therefore, we conclude that Hannon's unsupported claim is improper and deny relief on this claim.