Opinion ID: 1133754
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial Counsel's Failure to Present an Alibi for Two Murders

Text: Pardo asserted below that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate and present an alibi for the murders of Sara Musa and Fara Quintero. Pardo claimed that his wife was the source of the alibi, which could have demonstrated that Mr. Pardo was nowhere near the scene of the murders. The motion contained no other details of the facts supporting the alibi. In denying the claim without an evidentiary hearing, the trial court noted that Pardo does not allege what the alibi was or how the alibi could have changed the probability that he [would] be convicted. The trial court also observed that even if Pardo's wife had provided an alibi, Pardo cannot now show that a different result would have been reached or show he was prejudiced. We affirm on both grounds relied on by the trial court. First, Pardo's claim was insufficiently pled. In Jacobs v. State, 880 So.2d 548 (Fla.2004), we concluded that the petitioner set out a facially sufficient claim because he specifically identified the alibi witnesses, stated the substance of their exculpatory evidence, and averred that they were known to counsel. Id. at 553. Here, the motion did not factually describe how Pardo's wife would have supported an alibi beyond stating that she would have demonstrated that he was nowhere near the scene of the murders. Thus, this claim was insufficiently pled. The trial court also concluded that Pardo did not show prejudice. We agree that the claimed alibi does not undermine judicial confidence in the convictions on the counts involving Musa and Quintero. In Jacobs we stated: [A] claim of ineffectiveness in failing to present important exculpatory evidence cannot be resolved on the basis of the mere existence of conflicting evidence in the record. Rather, the record evidence must conclusively rebut the claim if the claim is to be resolved without a hearing. . . . However, the mere existence of evidence of guilt is insufficient to conclusively rebut a claim of ineffectiveness in failing to present evidence of innocence in the form of known and available alibi witnesses. Id. at 555. In this case, compelling evidence established Pardo's guilt of the Musa and Quintero murders, capped by his own admission to the jury that he murdered the two women as well as the other seven victims. Thus, the record conclusively refutes any claim that Pardo was prejudiced by the absence of testimony by his wife that he was elsewhere when two of the nine murders in this case occurred. We therefore affirm the summary denial of relief on this claim.