Opinion ID: 1684899
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ineffectiveness During the Guilt Phase of the Trial

Text: Overton contends that counsel was ineffective for the failure to adequately challenge the jailhouse informants during the guilt phase of the trial. This claim fails on the merits because we conclude that Overton's counsel did sufficiently challenge the jailhouse informants during trial. With regard to Guy Green, Smith elicited on cross-examination that Green had lied in the past to receive benefits, attempted to elicit that Green would receive benefits for the testimony here, and elicited the disciplinary problems that resulted in Green's gain time being lost. With regard to Zientek (also referred to as Pesci), Smith elicited the following information on cross-examination: (1) Zientek had repeatedly lied in the past; (2) Zientek was receiving a benefit to testify in this case; (3) the MacIvor case was in the newspapers at the time Zientek was in jail; (4) Overton was a big fish in that he had the most serious charges pending while in the jail; (5) Zientek never disclosed to Overton the true facts of his case; (6) Zientek made additional assertions to law enforcement that he did not include in his initial statement; and (7) Zientek faced significant time on serious charges (i.e., sexual battery) if his case proceeded to trial. Overton's counsel also unsuccessfully attempted to elicit that Zientek was known for entering the cells of other prisoners to view their personal documents. With regard to the failure to reference specific issues on cross-examination, Overton's counsel possessed sound strategic reasons for not challenging the jailhouse informants on these various points. First, during the evidentiary hearing, both Smith and Garcia testified that an investigation was conducted with regard to whether anyone witnessed Zientek in Overton's cell, but nothing useful was produced by the investigation. Garcia testified that Overton provided the defense with a list of names of those who could supposedly corroborate that Zientek was in Overton's cell. After investigating all of these persons, Garcia recalled that none of them gave us [Zientek] in the cell. Consistent with Garcia's testimony, Smith testified that none of the persons identified by Overton as individuals who supposedly saw Zientek in Overton's cell could actually make such a statement upon being deposed. Smith testified that anyone who observed Zientek in Overton's cell would have been used as a witness. In addition to being unable to state that they saw Zientek in Overton's cell, none of these people could confirm that Overton's door was left open when Overton did not occupy his cell. Additionally, Jon Ellsworth, prosecutor for the State in this case, testified that upon being deposed, none of these people could corroborate Overton's story that Zientek had access to Overton's cell. Thus, Overton's counsel was not deficient for the failure to challenge Zientek with testimony that he was seen in Overton's cell. The testimony of Overton's counsel during the evidentiary hearing establishes that this avenue of challenging Zientek was investigated and reasonably rejected as a matter of strategy due to the lack of evidence. Second, the decision of Overton's counsel to not offer themselves as witnesses (they saw Overton's cell door open during their attorney visits with Overton) to contradict the testimony of Zientek during trial that he did not have access to Overton's cell (Zientek testified that the cell door was never left open) was reasonable, rather than deficient performance. Neither Garcia nor Smith ever actually saw Zientek in Overton's cell, but instead, only saw Zientek walking around the area in which Overton's cell was located. During the evidentiary hearing, Garcia recalled Zientek's testimony during trial that he did not have access to Overton's cell, but he (Garcia) did not believe Zientek's testimony made him a witness in the case to the extent that he needed to place his name on a witness list. Garcia did not consider himself a witness because when he saw Zientek, Zientek wasn't in the cell. Similarly, Smith testified that it never occurred to him that he should bring this to the trial court's attention. It was reasonable for Overton's counsel to conclude that because they never saw Zientek in Overton's cell, their knowledge that Overton's cell door was left open during attorney visits was fairly insignificant. Moreover, Overton's counsel elicited on cross-examination that Zientek had general access to Overton's cell due to Zientek's activities of sweeping and mopping in Cell Block A. Further, Ellsworth testified during the evidentiary hearing that he had witnesses (including several jailers who could testify that Overton's cell was always locked in accordance with the jail's rules) prepared to testify to rebut the allegation that Zientek could access Overton's cell. This would have negated any significance that the jury would have attached to any evidence that the cell door was left unlocked. See Jones v. State, 928 So.2d 1178, 1185 (Fla.2006) ([C]ounsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to present evidence that would open the door to damaging cross-examination and rebuttal evidence that would counter any value that might be gained from the evidence. (quoting Johnson v. State, 921 So.2d 490, 501 (Fla.2005))). Third, the decision of Overton's counsel to proceed no further with impeachment on Zientek's handwritten notes and the police report from which Zientek's notes appeared to have been copied directly was a reasonable strategic decision. During the evidentiary hearing, Garcia testified that a major goal of the defense was to keep from the jury the fact that Overton was a past suspect in other crimes. Consistent with this goal, Overton's counsel filed the Motion in Limine Regarding Other Offenses on January 20, 1999, which was granted by the trial court. Smith and Garcia decided against using this material for impeachment of Zientek because these documents also referenced uncharged and unsolved crimes for which Overton was a suspect and would have opened the door for the State to ask questions on this adverse topic. This strategy was discussed between counsel and it was also discussed with Overton. A motion in limine that was granted ensured that the jury would not learn that Overton was a convicted felon, and counsel did not want to reopen the door on the topic. Moreover, the State was prepared to go through the opened door by referencing the other crimes that appeared on these documents if Overton's counsel had used this material for impeachment. Contrary to Overton's argument, the fear of opening the door on this topic was legitimate as jury knowledge of Overton's past involvement with crimes would have negatively affected counsel's ability to defend on these more serious murder charges. Therefore, Overton's counsel was not deficient for the strategic decision not to impeach Zientek in this manner. See Jones, 928 So.2d at 1185. Fourth, the decision of Overton's counsel to not explore Zientek's relationship with Detective Daniels did not constitute deficient performance. The record supports that Zientek was not an agent of the State and also that there was a reasonable strategic reason for not questioning Zientek on his relationship with Daniels. Daniels became involved with Zientek only after the FBI contacted him (Daniels) about the fact that Zientek possessed information on the MacIvor murders. After Daniels received Zientek's statement with regard to Overton's confession, he advised Zientek to not solicit any further information from Overton. Moreover, Daniels testified that it was Zientek who initiated the contact, rather than Daniels attempting to find ways for Zientek to embellish his story (i.e., showing Zientek crime scene photos). This is inconsistent with the assertion that Zientek was an agent who worked for the State. There was also sound strategic reasoning for this decision. Overton also contends that Zientek should have been questioned on his involvement with Daniels on other matters to illustrate that Zientek worked as an agent for the State. This mode of impeachment was considered and rejected by Smith because it would have opened the door to bolstering Zientek's testimony if the information given to Daniels in subsequent cases was corroborated by Daniels as being truthful. See Jones, 928 So.2d at 1185. For all these reasons, the decision to not further explore the alleged relationship with Daniels was not deficient performance. Even if any of these failures were deemed to constitute deficient performance, there was no prejudice. Green provided similar testimony that supported the conviction here. See Whitfield v. State, 923 So.2d 375, 380 (Fla.2005) (holding that the failure to call certain witnesses was not ineffective assistance because witnesses already presented similar evidence and counsel is not required to present cumulative evidence). Overton has failed to assert specific, additional actions that could have been taken by his counsel to challenge Green. [16] Notwithstanding the challenges to Green that were in fact accomplished during trial by Overton's counsel, Green provided damaging testimony that by itself would support the conviction here. During the evidentiary hearing, the State established the existence of a prosecutable case even before discovery of Zientek as a witness. Moreover, this Court has already determined on direct appeal that any error with regard to Zientek's testimony can only constitute harmless error because other evidence identified Overton as the perpetrator, which includes the testimony of Green. See Overton, 801 So.2d at 899.
Overton contends that his counsel was ineffective for the failure to investigate alibi or alternative theories of the crime. We conclude that this claim fails on the merits. The decisions by counsel to not present a work alibi defense that Overton was working at the Amoco gas station at the time of the MacIvor murders and alternative theories of the MacIvor murders were reasonable strategic decisions. The decision with regard to the work alibi defense was made only after an adequate investigation revealed that there was no evidence that Overton worked at Amoco on the night of the MacIvor murders. During the evidentiary hearing, Overton testified that he had worked at the Amoco station for just over one year at the time of the MacIvor murders in August 1991. The defense hired investigators Jeff Galler and Dave Burns to investigate the work alibi defense. Documents (timecards and receipts) that would have established whether Overton worked the night of the murders were no longer available for these investigators to review. Moreover, co-workers could not recall whether Overton worked that night. Multiple managers at Amoco at the time testified that they could not remember whether Overton worked the late shift that night, which covered from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. A non-manager who normally worked the morning shift testified that she could not remember whether Overton worked that night. Defense counsel considered an alibi defense, but . . . were unable to come up with specific witnesses. Additionally, Overton has not established that this evidence would have illustrated that Overton worked that night even if these witnesses had memory or if timecards had been available. See Pardo v. State, 941 So.2d 1057, 1065 (Fla.2006) (holding that the claim with regard to the failure to present an alibi was insufficiently pled because the motion did not describe how the alibi witness would have supported the alibi with exculpatory evidence (citing Jacobs v. State, 880 So.2d 548 (Fla. 2004))); Lott v. State, 931 So.2d 807, 815 (Fla.2006) (holding that the failure to investigate the alibi did not constitute ineffective assistance as there was no prejudice because the one alibi witness that was offered during the evidentiary hearing could not pinpoint the date of the conversation, so his testimony would have possessed minimal value as alibi evidence). Moreover, there was no prejudice from the failure to present the alibi defense because even if Overton's counsel had established that Overton was working that night, sufficient time remained for him to commit the murders. At best, the work alibi was an incomplete alibi. Susan and Michael were last seen alive at a childbirth class on August 21, 1991, which ended at about 9 p.m., and their bodies were not found until the next morning by concerned co-workers and a neighbor. See Overton, 801 So.2d at 881. It is clear that the murders could have occurred between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. The record does not provide any support that the murders occurred after 11 p.m. Due to the location of the Amoco station being only a couple of minutes away from the MacIvor home, see id. at 884, Overton could have easily committed the murders and still arrived timely for his shift. Therefore, this is an additional reason that the failure to present a work alibi defense did not constitute deficient performance, and in the alternative, there also was no prejudice. See Lott, 931 So.2d at 815 (holding that the failure to investigate the alibi did not constitute ineffective assistance as there was no prejudice because even if the jury believed that Lott did speak with Jones on the Sunday afternoon in question, it still would have left plenty of room in the twenty-seven hour timeline for Lott to have committed the murder); Reed v. State, 875 So.2d 415, 429-30 (Fla.2004) (holding that there was not deficient performance with regard to the failure to investigate the alibi defense claim because the available testimony provided, at best, an incomplete alibi as the testimony still allowed for a two- to three-hour window for the defendant to commit the murder). Overton further asserts that alternative theories for the murders were not presented. The record establishes that the other leads and suspects were considered and strategically rejected by Overton's counsel. Counsel were aware of the other leads and suspects that law enforcement had pursued, but there was nothing that [they] could come up with solid to put on when they explored these leads and suspects. For example, counsel considered the alleged involvement of Hector Hernandez, [17] but a strategic decision was made to not explore that avenue during trial after it was discussed with Overton. In addition to their belief that the statements of Hector Hernandez were not credible, Overton's counsel recognized that the Hernandez theory also clearly placed Overton at the murder scene. This was inconsistent with the defense theory that was consistently presented at trial that Overton was not present and his DNA had been planted by law enforcement. Overton's specific claim that an alternative theory of the murders [18] should have been presented during trial is without merit. Notwithstanding that the rationale provided by Katsnelson for this alternative theory may be argued as reasonable, there are numerous sound reasons why it was not presented by Overton's counsel. For example, Overton's counsel could have reasonably concluded that Katsnelson's opinion was not credible due to his questionable qualifications as an expert witness. Evidence of his qualifications included the following: (1) he is currently unemployed; (2) he graduated from medical school outside the United States; and (3) he has never been in the private practice of medicine in the United States. Even though Katsnelson subscribed to an alternative opinion theory, this does not support the contention that another expert in the field would have come to a similar conclusion. See Johnson v. State, 769 So.2d 990, 1005 (Fla.2000) (refusing to find ineffective assistance simply because new expert doctors had a different opinion than prior doctors, in support of court's conclusion that there had been no showing that the attorneys' conduct was ineffective in hiring the experts or in the material furnished). Moreover, Overton's counsel did present the expert testimony of Dr. Wright during trial, who was recommended and well known as one of the most qualified experts in the field of forensic pathology. The theory for a defense was discussed with Wright. Wright generally agreed with the conclusions of Dr. Nelms, who performed the autopsy of the MacIvors, and Overton's counsel reasonably explored all possible alternate theories of defense with Dr. Wright. The testimony of Dr. Wright during the trial explored alternatives that: (1) the MacIvors could have been killed somewhere other than the house; (2) there was little evidence of a struggle at the scene; and (3) evidence existed to suggest there was more than one perpetrator. Wright rejected the opinion that Susan had not been sexually assaulted. Thus, the particular theory of Katsnelson was partially covered. See Whitfield, 923 So.2d at 381. Therefore, for all these reasons, the decision to not present the alternative theory does not constitute ineffective assistance.
Overton further contends that the failure of his counsel to challenge the burglary charge on the basis of an expiration of the statute of limitations constituted ineffective assistance. Here, the State alleged that the burglary occurred in August 1991. Thus, assuming the statute of limitations was not extended or tolled, it would have expired in August 1995, because at the time of the incident, the limitation for a prosecution for a first-degree felony (such as the burglary charged here) was four years from the offense date. See § 775.15, Fla. Stat. (1991); Perez v. State, 545 So.2d 1357, 1358 (Fla.1989) ([T]he limitations period in effect at the time of the incident giving rise to the criminal charges controls the time within which prosecution must be begun.). Here, the charging document was not filed until December 1996. See § 775.15(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1991). The State contends that even if Overton's counsel had challenged the burglary charge based upon the statute of limitations, the State could have amended that charge to an armed burglary, which is a life felony, for which a prosecution could be commenced at any time. § 775.15, Fla. Stat. (1991); § 775.087(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1991). This ineffective assistance claim is without merit regardless of whether the State could have amended the charging document to include the more serious burglary charge. The State did not need to include a burglary charge in this case for the trial court to find the aggravating factor of murder committed during the course of a felony. See Occhicone v. State, 570 So.2d 902, 906 (Fla.1990) (The state need not charge and convict of felony murder or any felony in order for a court to find the aggravating factor of murder committed during the course of a felony. (citing Ruffin v. State, 397 So.2d 277 (Fla.1981))). Even without a burglary charge, the trial court would have had the basis to still find the murder during a felony aggravator here. There was clear evidence that the MacIvor murders occurred during the commission of a burglary of the MacIvor home by Overton. See Overton, 801 So.2d at 885 (discussing the testimony that Overton had admitted to [Green] that Overton had `done a burglary at a real exclusive, wealthy, wealthy area down in the Keys,' that Overton had admitted that he had surveilled the house on several occasions [and] went to the home carrying a bag, which contained, among other things, a police scanner [and that] [o]ne of the first things [he] completed when he arrived was the cutting of phone wires). This evidence of the burglary was an integral part of the description of the MacIvor murders. Therefore, even without the burglary charge, the evidence of the identical conduct would have still been presented during trial, and the trial court would have still had the basis to find the aggravator included in sentencing Overton to death. There was no prejudice.
Overton contends that the failure of his counsel to challenge the preindictment delay of five years constituted ineffective assistance. Overton has not demonstrated prejudice because the underlying claim involving preindictment delay is without merit. To possibly establish that a preindictment delay is a due process violation, the defendant must first show actual prejudice from the delay, and the court must then weigh any demonstrable reasons for the delay against the significance of the particular prejudice on a case-by-case basis. See Rivera v. State, 717 So.2d 477, 483 (Fla.1998) (citing Rogers v. State, 511 So.2d 526, 531 (Fla.1987)). If Overton's counsel had asserted a challenge based on the preindictment delay, the claim would have failed under both of the required elements. Under the first, Overton could not establish there was actual prejudice from the delay. Even assuming alibi witnesses and Amoco timecards or receipts would have established that Overton worked the late night shift on August 21, 1991, this would only provide an incomplete alibi at best as discussed above. See Rivera, 717 So.2d at 483-84 (holding that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim for counsel's failure to present the preindictment delay issue was without merit because there was no actual prejudice to the supposed alibi defense as the now unavailable witnesses would not have provided the defendant with an alibi for the time when the murder could have occurred). With regard to Lorna Swaby [19] no longer being available as a witness, this also does not constitute actual prejudice. Contrary to Overton's argument, there is no evidence that she would have been able to provide any information involving the allegation that Detective Visco planted Overton's DNA. See Overton, 801 So.2d at 897 ([T]he defense failed to produce a scintilla of evidence that Detective Visco planted the seminal fluids.) (emphasis added). During the evidentiary hearing, Detective Visco testified that he did not receive a used condom from Swaby and he had no knowledge that Overton's semen was planted. Finally, Overton's argument that the delay led to degradation or contamination of the DNA evidence lacks any evidentiary support. During the evidentiary hearing, Dr. Libby testified that he could not make the determination that degradation in fact resulted with the DNA evidence here. Moreover, Dr. Bever testified that Overton's DNA was a match and those samples did not show any significant signs of degradation. The evidence established that there were no signs of even minor degradation. Additionally, Dr. Pollock testified that degradation was not an issue here as any degradation was only a minor amount, which was insignificant to his opinion and examinations. The speculation by Overton that degradation must have occurred during the preindictment delay does not satisfy the actual prejudice requirement. See Maharaj v. State, 778 So.2d 944, 951 (Fla. 2000) (holding that the ineffective assistance claim was without merit because the conclusions to support the claim were sheer speculation and [p]ostconviction relief cannot be based on speculation or possibility). Under the second element, there was justification for the delay by law enforcement. But cf. Scott v. State, 581 So.2d 887, 892-93 (Fla.1991) (holding that the preindictment delay was a due process violation because actual prejudice was shown and the State had shown absolutely no need for any investigative delay). During the evidentiary hearing, F.K. Jones, who was the initial lead detective for the MacIvor murders, testified that all leads were pursued. With the large number of leads and suspects that were pursued prior to the DNA match for Overton in 1996, which occurred only after Overton's failed suicide attempt provided bloody towels because he had refused earlier requests to voluntarily provide a blood sample, it is reasonable that the other leads and suspects were investigated in a diligent manner. The preindictment delay of five years was not caused by any law enforcement wrongdoing, but instead, resulted from the multiple other leads and suspects that were pursued and the time period for law enforcement (through no fault of their own) to obtain a sample of Overton's blood. Thus, a claim by Overton involving preindictment delay would have failed for this reason. Accordingly, there was no prejudice.
Overton contends that the failure of his counsel to declare a conflict of interest constituted ineffective assistance. This claim is without merit. As a general rule, the right to effective assistance of counsel encompasses the right to representation free from actual conflict. Sliney v. State, 944 So.2d 270, 279 (Fla.2006) (quoting Hunter v. State, 817 So.2d 786, 791 (Fla.2002)). To establish ineffective assistance in this situation, the defendant must demonstrate the existence of an actual conflict and that the conflict had an adverse effect upon his lawyer's representation. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 350, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). Once a defendant satisfies both of these elements, prejudice is presumed. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 349-50, 100 S.Ct. 1708. To demonstrate an actual conflict, the defendant must identify specific evidence in the record that suggests that his or her interests were compromised. Sliney, 944 So.2d at 279 (quoting Hunter, 817 So.2d at 792). There is no evidence in the record that Overton's interests were compromised by any type of conflict of interest. Contrary to Overton's arguments, nothing supports the contention that Overton's counsel improperly revealed the Nonoxynol defense theory to the State through any method, including the presentation of a book which supposedly outlined the theory. During the evidentiary hearing, Overton testified that he learned about the Nonoxynol theory while reading the book, which he then presented to his counsel. Conversely, Overton's counsel both testified that they were never given the book by Overton. Instead, they testified that the Nonoxynol theory was first brought to their attention by Dr. Wright. The testimony of Overton's counsel is corroborated by Ellsworth, who testified that neither Smith nor Garcia ever gave him the book. Instead, Ellsworth actually informed defense counsel that the Nonoxynol theory was in the book. The book was part of the State's case file only because the book belonged to Ellsworth. The record does not support Overton's assertion that an actual conflict existed; therefore, there is no need to conduct further analysis. See Wright v. State, 857 So.2d 861, 872 (Fla. 2003) (holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance due to the alleged conflict of interest because the defendant failed to demonstrate a conflict as nothing was presented to refute the attorney's testimony that his loyalty was to his clients). Accordingly, this ineffective assistance claim fails on the merits.