Opinion ID: 2492624
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to Move to Suppress Johnston's Statements to Law Enforcement

Text: Johnston also argues that statements he made to law enforcement were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and that guilt phase counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the admissibility of these statements. We disagree. First, Johnston's claim that his statements to law enforcement officers were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights is procedurally barred because it could have been but was not raised on direct appeal. See Willacy v. State, 967 So.2d 131, 141 (Fla.2007) (Claims that could have been brought on direct appeal are procedurally barred in postconviction proceedings.). On direct appeal, Johnston challenged the admission of particular statements made to Detectives Noblitt and Stanton on the basis of relevance and did not raise any challenge to the method in which any statements were obtained from him. See Johnston, 863 So.2d at 278-80. Therefore, Johnston is not entitled to relief on his claim that trial court erred in admitting the statements at issue because that argument has been waived. Johnston's additional claim that his guilt phase counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the statements at issue is also without merit. [S]trategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if alternative courses have been considered and rejected and counsel's decision was reasonable under the norms of professional conduct. Occhicone, 768 So.2d at 1048. Here, as counsel explained during the postconviction evidentiary hearing, there was a strategic reason for allowing the introduction of Johnston's statements regarding his alleged activity in the victim's house. Because Johnston did not wish to testify at trial, defense counsel wanted an alternative method for getting an explanation before the jury as to why physical evidence placed Johnston inside the victim's home. As counsel testified, he saw the statements to law enforcement as a strategic means of introducing an explanation for why Johnston's fingerprints were in the victim's bathroom, where the victim's body was found. And as the trial court correctly concluded, counsel's reasoned strategic decision to utilize Johnston's exculpatory statements to law enforcement does not constitute deficient performance. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (explaining that counsel's performance is deficient only if the identified acts or omissions were outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance). Therefore, counsel's decision not to suppress the statements at issue does not constitute ineffective assistance and Johnston is not entitled to relief on this claim.