Opinion ID: 1942603
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Request Appointment of Co-Counsel

Text: Evans next alleges that trial counsel was deficient for failing to request the appointment of co-counsel to assist in investigating and presenting mitigation in a capital case pursuant to Guideline 2.1 of the American Bar Association Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases (1989) (ABA Guidelines). [22] In denying this claim, the trial court determined that Evans failed to establish both prongs under Strickland. We agree. First, the trial court found that Evans failed to establish that defense counsel's performance was deficient. The trial court recognized that defense counsel was bound by Brevard County's guidelines for trying a capital case, not the ABA guidelines, [23] and that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.112, which adopted the ABA guidelines in part and provides that a judge may appoint co-counsel in a capital case, had not been enacted at the time of Evans' trial. Second, even if counsel was deficient, the trial court determined that Evans had not demonstrated how counsel's solo representation prejudiced Evans. As the trial court correctly stated, [t]he mere fact that a Defendant has been represented by one attorney alone is insufficient to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Cole v. State, 841 So.2d 409, 428 (Fla.2003) (The general allegation that mitigating evidence could have been better presented [had co-counsel been requested and appointed] is an insufficient allegation of prejudice.); State v. Riechmann, 777 So.2d 342, 359 (Fla.2000) (denying claim of ineffective assistance for failure to request co-counsel where defendant failed to specifically demonstrate how counsel's solo representation affected outcome of trial). The trial court's findings are supported by competent substantial evidence. We affirm.