Opinion ID: 1852379
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to Object to the Use of an Illegally Obtained Incriminating Statement

Text: On direct appeal, Waterhouse challenged the admission of a statement he made while in custody, to wit, You do what you have to do to protect Bobby Waterhouse. No one wants to go to jail. Waterhouse, 429 So.2d at 307. We have previously concluded that although any error in the statement's admission had not been preserved by counsel for review the statements could have had no significant impact on the jury's sentencing recommendation because Waterhouse's guilt of the murder was not at issue. Thus, at most, the admission of these statements would be harmless error. 596 So.2d at 1016-17 (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied). In so holding, we have already expressed our view that the admission of this statement did not prejudice Waterhouse. Thus, this claim fails to satisfy the prejudice prong as set forth in Strickland; accordingly, no evidentiary hearing was warranted.