Opinion ID: 1611770
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Present Codefendant Paul's Testimony

Text: Cole alleges that trial counsel should have presented codefendant Paul's testimony because the evidence of Cole's guilt was mainly circumstantial. The trial court found after the evidentiary hearing that: 1. William Paul testified at depositionwherein he was actively questioned by Defendant's trial counselthat Defendant was the individual who killed John Edwards and raped Pam Edwards. William Paul's deposition testimony was consistent with his statement to law enforcement immediately after his arrest. 2. Pam Edwards testified at trial that the Defendantnot William Paul killed John Edwards and raped her. Pam Edwards' trial testimony was consistent with William Paul's deposition testimony and his statement to law enforcement. 3. William Paul wrote a letter to both Defendant's trial counsel and counsel for the State and informed them that he would not willingly testify for either party. 4. Defendant's trial counsel had no reason to believe that William Paul's testimony would be helpful to his client. Therefore, he made a tactical decision not to call William Paul as a witness. Defendant, who had been supplied with a copy of Paul's deposition by his trial counsel, concurred with counsel's decision. State v. Cole, No. 94-498-CF, order at 3 (Fla. 5th Cir. Ct. order filed May 24, 2000). We find that there is competent, substantial evidence supporting the trial court's finding that trial counsel's decision was tactical. Trial counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing that he had taken Paul's deposition, that he was aware of the substance of Paul's statement to Marion County deputies, and that he was familiar with the physical evidence in the case. Prior to trial, trial counsel and Cole extensively discussed whether Paul should testify. Trial counsel testified that Cole reviewed Paul's statement and letter. Trial counsel concluded that having Paul testify would not help Cole, and counsel discussed with Cole the advantages and disadvantages of having Paul testify. At that time, Cole agreed with counsel not to have Paul testify. Thus, we find no error in the trial court's conclusion that Cole failed to demonstrate that trial counsel performed deficiently. See, e.g., Occhicone, 768 So.2d at 1048.