Opinion ID: 1561769
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Defendant's Presence During Jurors' Oath

Text: Anderson contends that appellate counsel was ineffective because appellate counsel did not challenge his and the judge's absence when the prospective jurors were sworn for voir dire. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.180(a)(4) requires that the defendant be present at the beginning of trial during the examination, challenging, impaneling, and swearing of the jury. Anderson asserts that his right to be present at the beginning of trial included when the jury was sworn for voir dire. However, we have previously rejected this argument and have held that the prior general qualification process does not require the defendant's presence. See Robinson v. State, 520 So.2d 1, 4 (Fla.1988) ([W]e do not find that process to be a critical stage of the proceedings requiring the defendant's presence.). Immediately before opening statements, with Anderson present, the jury was sworn. This satisfies the requirement that the defendant be present when the jury is sworn, and therefore Anderson's claim is not well taken. Appellate counsel is expected to raise those claims which are deemed to have the most merit, and is not ineffective for failing to raise meritless issues. Brown, 846 So.2d at 1128 (citing Downs v. Moore, 801 So.2d 906, 910 (Fla. 2001)). Therefore, Anderson's request for habeas relief on this issue is denied.