Opinion ID: 1887725
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Detective Juan Herrera's Testimony

Text: Appellant also raises five claims of ineffective assistance relating to trial counsel's failure to object to testimony of Detective Juan Herrera of the Miami Police Department regarding Appellant and Noel Montalvo's rental of an apartment in Miami following the murders. Specifically, Appellant argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to: 1) hearsay testimony that [Appellant's] Florida residence was rented in his brother's name using an alias; 2) leading and hearsay testimony that the landlord/manager was[, in fact, a landlord,] and his saying that [Appellant], his brother and [his brother's] wife rented an apartment in Miami; 3) Detective Herrera's testimony that the apartment lease [sic] was rented on April 20, 1998, based on a receipt he obtained, that testimony being without foundation and hearsay; and 4) testimony from Detective Herrera that the landlord was in the hospital and dying. Appellant's Brief at 25. Finally, Appellant argues that trial counsel elicited, reinforced and opened the door to evidence that [Appellant], his brother and [his brother's] wife rented an apartment in Miami on April 20, 1998, and that the brother used an alias. Id. With regard to the above-listed claims, Appellant argues that the admission of this improper hearsay evidence of joint flight supported the Commonwealth's theory of the brothers acting as co-conspirators in the murders. The Commonwealth counters that Appellant suffered no prejudice from the admission of this evidence and we agree. At trial, the jury heard testimony that Appellant stated his intent to commit Ascensio's murder in Noel Montalvo's presence the day before the crime. The jury also heard Soto's tape-recorded statement, which described Appellant's and his brother's confession and statements of their intent to flee to Florida. The jury also heard admissible testimony from Detective Herrera that Appellant was apprehended in Miami. Consequently, the properly admitted evidence demonstrating that Appellant and Noel Montalvo acted as co-conspirators and fled to Florida was sufficiently strong that there is no reasonable probability that the exclusion of Detective Herrera's challenged testimony would have affected the outcome of the proceedings. Moreover, when considering the overwhelming evidence of Appellant's individual guilt, including Appellant being placed at Ascensio's apartment shortly before the murders and the presence of his blood in two locations at the crime scene, we conclude that Appellant has again failed to satisfy the prejudice prong. There is no reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different but for trial counsel's failure to object.