Opinion ID: 1100544
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel During Jury Selection

Text: Philmore next asserts that the trial court erred in denying his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the State's use of a peremptory strike to remove juror Holt, an African-American female. Specifically, Philmore argues that trial counsel failed to adequately challenge the State's proffered reason for the strike as pretextual. In making this argument, Philmore appears to be seeking review of the validity of the strike. This substantive issue was raised and addressed on direct appeal and is therefore procedurally barred. See Kimbrough v. State, 886 So.2d 965, 983 (Fla.2004) (concluding that to the extent the defendant seeks review of the substantive issue underlying his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the claim is procedurally barred because it could have been raised on direct appeal). To the extent Philmore contends that trial counsel was ineffective, we conclude that Philmore cannot establish prejudice. On direct appeal, Philmore argued that the trial court erred in granting the State's peremptory challenge regarding prospective juror Tajuana Holt, because the State's reason for excusing her was pretextual and she was in fact stricken because of her race. Philmore, 820 So.2d at 929. We first concluded that the claim had been waived because although Philmore objected at the time the State sought to exercise a peremptory strike of Holt, he failed to renew his objection prior to the jury being sworn. Id. at 930. However, we also addressed the merits of Philmore's claim and determined that it has no merit because the State has advanced a facially race-neutral non-pretextual reason for peremptorily challenging Holt. Id. Therefore, any alleged deficiency in counsel's performance in challenging the State's strike of juror Holt did not so affect[ ] the fairness and reliability of the proceedings that confidence in the outcome is undermined. Gore, 846 So.2d at 467. The trial court correctly denied this claim for relief.