Opinion ID: 1587240
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Failure to Appeal the Trial Court's Denial of Bradley's Motions Attacking the Constitutionality of Florida's Capital Sentencing Scheme

Text: In Bradley's first habeas claim, he contends that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal the denial of his many commonly filed boiler-plate motions challenging the constitutionality of Florida's death penalty statutes. [21] Nonetheless, Bradley has failed to set forth any basis upon which this Court could grant him relief. Instead, he simply refers the Court to his claims filed below. As we have previously held, vague and conclusory allegations are insufficient to warrant relief. See Doorbal v. State, 983 So.2d 464, 482 (Fla.2008) ([T]o merely refer to arguments presented during the postconviction proceedings without further elucidation is not sufficient ... and these claims are deemed to have been waived.); Thompson v. State, 759 So.2d 650, 668 (Fla.2000) (denying habeas claim, in part, as legally insufficient because defendant made only a conclusory statement without specific supporting facts). The purpose of a legal brief is to offer argument in support of the issues raised on appeal. See Doorbal, 983 So.2d at 482. Bradley has failed to do this, and consequently, he has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that appellate counsel was ineffective. See Parker v. State, 904 So.2d 370, 375 n. 3 (Fla. 2005) (declining to review four issues that Parker raised on appeal because the claims of error were bare-bones and conclusory). Accordingly, Bradley has failed to present a legally sufficient claim for habeas relief and this claim is denied as waived.