Opinion ID: 1805203
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Summarily Denied Claims of Ineffective Assistance in the Guilt Phase

Text: Sexton next argues that the trial court erred in summarily denying eleven guilt phase claims of ineffective assistance, which assert that counsel failed to object to prosecutorial comment, to hearsay testimony, to certain other evidence, and during voir dire. [13] Further, despite raising eleven claims that he contends were improperly denied without an evidentiary hearing, Sexton has chosen not to present this Court with specific arguments explaining how, in each instance, counsel was ineffective or what prejudice flows from the deficiency. Because Sexton does not provide in the initial brief an explanation why summary denial was inappropriate or what factual determination was required on each claim so as to necessitate an evidentiary hearing, his conclusory argument is insufficient to preserve his claim. See Doorbal v. State, 983 So.2d 464, 482-83 (Fla.2008) (citing Randolph v. State, 853 So.2d 1051, 1063 n. 12 (Fla.2003)). [W]hen reviewing a court's summary denial of an initial rule 3.851 motion, an appellate court must accept the movant's factual allegations as true, and the appellate court will affirm the ruling only if the filings show that the movant has failed to state a facially sufficient claim or the existing record demonstrates that there is no issue of material fact to be determined. Rose v. State, 985 So.2d 500, 505 (Fla.2008). We have made clear through rule 3.851 that evidentiary hearings should be the norm when there are factual issues to be developed. But in this case, Sexton offers no new witnesses to cast doubt on his guilt or new evidence that he claims counsel should have presented. Essentially, he asserts that counsel was deficient in not objecting to certain comments during voir dire and in allowing certain testimony to come before the jury. While those types of alleged deficiencies can be a basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, merely asserting deficiency without more specific factual allegations is insufficient to mandate an evidentiary hearing. The trial court fully discussed each claim, attached the relevant portions of the record, and explained why, based on the facts in the record and the applicable law, the requirements of Strickland were not met. We have grouped similar claims together and will discuss them briefly below. [14]
Sexton first contends that there were certain comments made by the prosecutor during voir dire that were improper and should have been objected to by counsel. We have reviewed his claims and conclude there was no impropriety in the comments and hence no deficiency. As to Sexton's claim that counsel was ineffective for not objecting to venire members walking in and out during voir dire, this claim was properly denied because the record confirms that counsel objected. Further, any complaint regarding the trial courts response to this objection should have been raised on direct appeal and is therefore procedurally barred. See Pooler v. State, 980 So.2d 460, 470 (Fla.2008) (citing Spencer v. State, 842 So.2d 52, 60-61 (Fla.2003)). There is also no merit to Sextons claim of alleged deficiency for failure to seek individual voir dire of four venire members who indicated they had heard or read details of the case because three of the jurors did not serve. As to the fourth, juror Hart, this claim is properly denied because Sexton failed to make any claim of actual bias, Carratelli v. State, 961 So.2d 312, 324 (Fla.2007), and no evidence of bias appears in the record. As the trial court found, juror Hart stated that he had no opinions about the case based on what he had heard or read. Thus, the trial court correctly denied these claims without an evidentiary hearing.
First, Sexton alleges that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to prosecutorial comments in both opening and closing arguments. However, we have reviewed each of the alleged improper prosecutorial comments and agree with the trial court that none of the comments was improper under the facts of this case. Thus, this claim is without merit and was properly denied. Second, Sexton argues that his counsel was ineffective for explaining in his opening statement that Sexton engaged in sexual abuse and unusual familial relationships. Defense counsel stated to the jury: You're going to learn very quickly in this trial, if you haven't already, that Eddie Sexton is a far cry from the all American father. You're going to hear evidence that he engaged in conduct before he was arrested in this case with his children that could be considered reprehensible. You're going to learn that he took liberties with his children that may ask youor may cause you to ask yourselves and wonder, can this kind of thing really happen; does this really go on. I'm here to tell you that the evidence will show that in the Sexton family this did go on. This is a case about a very sick family. There will be a lot of mud thrown at the man sitting behind mesome of it true, some of it speculative, all of it ugly, all of it nasty, but none of it first-degree murder, and that is what you're here to decide. Eddie Sexton is not a murderer, and the only issue for you to pass upon is whether the evidence establishes that he's guilty of first-degree murder or if he's not guilty. We conclude that there is no deficiency in this regard. This evidence was to be admitted regardless of whether it was discussed in opening statements and counsel was simply referring to uncontradicted facts about Sexton's relationship with his family. Sexton has failed to demonstrate any deficiency in these comments of trial counsel.
Sexton next argues that counsel was ineffective for not objecting to certain testimony and the introduction of evidence. Initially, Sexton argues that counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the lack of foundation for the testimony of Judy Genetin, an Ohio social worker, in which she stated that paternity tests established that Sexton fathered two children with his own daughter, Pixie. On direct appeal from the first trial, this Court held: With respect to the evidence that Sexton had fathered two of Pixie's children, was involved in the death of Pixie and Joel's baby, and had engaged in a standoff with Ohio police that resulted in him becoming a fugitive, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling this evidence relevant. Sexton, 697 So.2d at 837. Even if counsel should have objected to the lack of foundation for Genetin's knowledge, see Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Moore, 603 So.2d 13, 14 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (holding that paternity tests are not admissible where unauthenticated and a predicate has not been laid), Pixie also testified that Sexton was the father of two of her children. Therefore, we conclude that no prejudice can be established. Next, Sexton contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a videotape of Sexton made by Sexton for presentation to the authorities, in which he discussed his personal and family problems resulting from the State of Ohio's removal of his children from his custody for a period of time and which was ultimately the impetus for Sexton's flight to Florida. Although counsel stipulated to its admission if portions of the video showing Sexton's children were excised, which they were, Sexton failed to identify those specific portions of the tape that were objectionable or prejudicial. As the Court warned in Doorbal, nonspecific allegations are insufficient to obtain an evidentiary hearing on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and counsel should not assume that specific arguments need not be presented until the evidentiary hearing. 983 So.2d at 482. The problem is compounded when no specific arguments are presented in the appellate brief identifying the inadmissible portions of the evidence that counsel should have objected to at trial. Sexton has not identified any specific legal basis on which his attorney should have objected to any or all of the videotape. In fact, portions of the video could be interpreted as showing him in a sympathetic light as a loving, if not severely troubled, fatherall tending to humanize him for the jury. In addition, Sexton chose not to testify at trial, so the video allowed him to speak to the jury without cross-examination. Finally, the video contained information found to be relevant in the case, including why Sexton fled to Florida and had a motive to keep Joel from returning to Ohio. [15] Because portions of the video were clearly relevant and may even have had a positive effect, Sexton has not demonstrated that his counsel was deficient in failing to object on the ground of relevance. Therefore, relief is not warranted on this claim.
Sexton claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to numerous instances of hearsay testimony. We have reviewed each of these assertions and conclude that Sexton has not alleged a basis on which to have an evidentiary hearing because he has not demonstrated error in the trial court's admission of the testimony. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's summary denial of these claims.
Sexton contends that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a proper cumulative analysis. Because no errors were identified, no cumulative analysis is necessary. See, e.g., Rogers v. State, 957 So.2d 538, 554 (Fla.2007) (stating that because each claim is procedurally barred or without merit, the cumulative error claim must fail).