Opinion ID: 799074
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Failure to adequately argue motions for judgment of acquittal and new trial

Text: Stephens argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for making a bare bones motion for a judgment of acquittal and motion for new trial, and therefore failed to preserve various arguments for Stephens' direct appeal. On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court did find that counsel had failed to preserve these arguments. Stephens I, 787 So.2d at 753 (This claim was not preserved for appeal because Stephens' counsel made a bare bones motion for judgment of acquittal, without any specific argument.). However, the Florida Supreme Court went on to deny both motions on the merits, finding that there was overwhelming evidence of guilt, and that the manifest weight of the evidence proves, at a minimum, that Stephens committed felony murder. Stephens I, 787 So.2d at 754 (This issue has not been properly preserved for appeal because Stephens' counsel made a bare bones motion for a new trial. . . . Moreover, even if this issue had been preserved for appeal, we would find no error because the claim is without merit.). On post-conviction review, the Florida Supreme Court determined that counsel's failure to more vigorously argue these motions did not prejudice Stephens because, on direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court both acknowledged that the claims were unpreserved and denied them on the merits in any case. We cannot say that this conclusion was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.