Opinion ID: 1939904
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appellate Counsel's Ineffectiveness Regarding the HAC Aggravator

Text: The requirements for establishing a claim based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel parallel the standards announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). [The] [p]etitioner must show 1) specific errors or omissions which show that appellate counsel's performance deviated from the norm or fell outside the range of professionally acceptable performance and 2) the deficiency of that performance compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence in the fairness and correctness of the appellate result. Wilson v. Wainwright, 474 So.2d 1162, 1163 (Fla.1985); see also Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1069 (Fla.2000); Suarez v. Dugger, 527 So.2d 190 (Fla.1988). Procedurally barred claims not properly raised during trial cannot form a basis for finding appellate counsel ineffective absent a showing of fundamental error, which is defined as an error that reach[es] down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error. State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 644-45 (Fla.1991). Brown argues that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel when he failed to raise in a motion for rehearing that this Court, after concluding on direct appeal that the HAC aggravator did not apply, failed to adequately reweigh the remaining circumstances. On direct appeal, this Court held that the trial court erred in finding that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel but determined that any error in instruction was harmless and that there was no reasonable probability that the error contributed to the recommended sentence. Brown, 644 So.2d at 54. Reweighing of the circumstances was a non-issue because the Court determined that the error was harmless. Thus, the substance of this habeas claim is that Brown disagrees with this Court's harmless error analysis. Habeas petitions, however, should not serve as a second or substitute appeal and may not be used as a variant to an issue already raised. See Fotopoulos v. State, 838 So.2d 1122, 1134 (Fla.2002); Medina v. Dugger, 586 So.2d 317, 318 (Fla.1991). Appellate counsel did file a motion for rehearing where he argued that consideration of an invalid aggravating factor by either judge or jury invalidates the sentence. Appellate counsel also argued that a mere `reasonable possibility' wherein this court cannot exclude a reasonable doubt that the error as to the judge's instructions regarding aggravating circumstances did not affect the verdict is not a basis for concluding the error did not affect the verdict. Therefore, appellate counsel's motion did challenge this Court's harmless error analysis. Thus, no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel has been established.