Opinion ID: 1694183
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ineffectiveness as to Alibi Witnesses

Text: In his first claim, Happ argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to object to leading questions and did not effectively cross-examine defense alibi witness Vincent Ambrosino and further his counsel failed to call an available defense alibi witness, Carlos Quinones. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Happ's claim as to counsel's failure to call Quinones, expressly finding that counsel's performance could not be deficient because Quinones' testimony was not relevant. The trial court also denied the claim as to the failure of counsel to object when the State allegedly asked Ambrosino leading questions. This Court has reviewed the trial record and the record of the evidentiary hearing. Based upon this review, the Court has concluded that the trial court's denial of relief on this basis should be affirmed. [5] We do so based upon the following record and for the following reasons. Ambrosino was a State witness during the trial. At the time this murder occurred, Ambrosino lived in his mother's home in Crystal River. Ambrosino's stepfather, Carlos Quinones, and two other younger children also resided in Ambrosino's mother's house at the time. Ambrosino met Happ about a month before the night of the murder, which occurred in the early morning hours of Friday, May 24, 1986. Happ had been in Crystal River since March of 1986 and was living at the home of his great aunt, Edna Peckham. Mrs. Peckham's house was north of Crystal River and south of the barge canal [6] in a wooded area close to Highway 19. Ambrosino became acquainted with Happ at the bowling alley in Crystal River, which was located a short distance from Ambrosino's mother's house. Ambrosino and Happ became friendly and got together every day that month. Most days, they went to the bowling alley. While living at Mrs. Peckham's home, Happ found work as a painter and wallpaper hanger. Mrs. Peckham bought a truck so that Happ could get to work. However, a day or two before the night of the murder, Mrs. Peckham took the truck away from Happ because she found that the truck was low on oil. Ambrosino testified that Happ was supposed to pick him up from his work at McDonald's on Wednesday, May 21, but because Happ had no truck, Happ did not pick him up. Rather, Ambrosino met Happ around the corner on [Highway] 44 in Crystal River, and they went from there to the bowling alley. After leaving the bowling alley on that Wednesday evening, Ambrosino and Happ each went their separate ways. Ambrosino and Happ were next together on Thursday evening, May 22. Ambrosino's testimony during the retrial was: Q [BY THE STATE] The next day, Thursday, did you see Mr. Happ again on Thursday? A Yes. Q And where did you see him that day? A Maybe at my house or at the bowling alley. Q You don't exactly remember where? A No, not exactly for sure. Q Do you remember whether or not that Thursday night he actually spent the night at your mother's house with you? A Yes. Q He did? A He spent all night. Q Okay. And that  This was after you all had met and been wherever you'd been, you don't really remember but you know he spent Thursday night with you. A Yes. Q As a result of him having spent Thursday night with you, was there any friction between you and I think it's your stepfather? A Yes. Q Or was your stepfather at that time. And what was that friction? A He had to get up in the morning and I had woke him to ask him if my friend could stay the night. Q You woke him up Thursday night and asked him if Mr. Happ could spend the night. He got upset because you woke him and he was going to have to get up and go to work the next day? A Yes. Q The next day would have been Friday, and now we're talking about the 21st, Thursday the 22nd, Friday the 23rd of May, 1986. You and Mr. Happ I assume got up, you're at your mother's house. Do you remember what you did that day? A Went to the bowling alley and about 11:00-11:00 o'clock or so, we started walking home. Q This is 11:00 o'clock in the evening now? A Yes, p.m. Q Had you considered Mr. Happ's spending the night at your house again on Friday night? A I considered it but I didn't want to up  I didn't want to have any more friction with my stepdad. Q You didn't ask him to spend the night Friday night? A No. Q Friday night, May the 23rd, where was the last place that you saw Mr. Happ? A On Holiday Drive and 44. Q And could you on the map again point out to us where that location is? Can you find it? How about right here (indicating)? A Okay. Q Would that be just a little bit to the left of the dot, the dot then would be Manatee Lanes; right? That's the bowling alley? A That's right. Q Right in that area (indicating)? A Yes. Q Which way was Mr. Happ headed when you last saw him? A Toward this direction, toward his house. Q Okay. Do you know where he lives or where he was living at that time? A He lived down Highway 19. It was down around back in the woods. Q Okay. Would it have been up towards the barge canal? A Yes, down toward that way (indicating), but not as far as the barge canal. Q Okay. And what time of evening was this? A Around eleven. Q Eleven p.m.? A P.M. Q This is Friday night? A Yes. Q The next morning which would have been Saturday morning, May the 24th, did you have the occasion to see Mr. Happ again? A Yes, he came over in the morning. Q Saturday morning? A Around nine o'clock. Q Okay. When he came over that morning, did that cause any problems between you and your stepfather again? A Yes, he didn't  he had a rule he didn't want any company over before 10:00 o'clock on the weekends. Q Okay. And he was off that Saturday? A He didn't go to work, no. Q And that  Was it not unusual for him because he usually works on Saturday? A Right. Q He usually works Saturday and is off Sunday and Monday? A Right. Q This particular weekend he had Saturday, Sunday, and Monday off? A Yes, sir. Q When you saw Mr. Happ this was again at your mom's house on Gum Street, right off of Gum Street, in Crystal River; is that right? A Yes. Q When you saw him there that morning, did you notice any injuries to either one of his hands? A I believe his right hand was swollen. He told me he hit a tree. His grandmother (sic) took his truck away, and he had to walk home in the middle of the night. Q Got mad and hit a tree? A Yes. Q And did you actually see his hand red and swollen? A Yes, he showed it to me. Q This now was on Saturday morning at about 9:00 o'clock, May the 24th, 1986. A Yes. Following this direct-examination testimony, Ambrosino was cross-examined by defense co-counsel Mark Nacke. Defense counsel elicited in detail that Ambrosino had stated to the Sheriff's investigator in February of 1987 that Happ had spent the night at Ambrosino's mother's house on the night of Friday, May 23, not on the night of Thursday, May 22, and that Happ showed up again on Sunday, not on Saturday morning. Defense counsel further brought out that Ambrosino had testified in a deposition in October 1988 that Happ had spent the night on Friday night, not on Thursday night. Prior to the trial, the defense filed a notice of alibi witness pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.200. In this notice, defense counsel listed Happ's great aunt, Mrs. Peckman, as an alibi witness. After the State rested, the defense called Mrs. Peckham, who testified that in May of 1986, Happ was living at her home with her and her sick husband. At that time, Mrs. Peckham's husband was bedridden and had cancer and Alzheimer's disease. He had also suffered a stroke, which rendered him unable to speak. Mrs. Peckham testified that Happ was at her home on the evening of May 23 and into the morning hours of May 24. According to Mrs. Peckham, Happ had been in her home for dinner on the evening of May 23 and did not go out after dinner. She was up and down all that evening, taking care of her ailing husband. She further testified that Happ was in her home when she awoke the next morning at 6 a.m. She testified that she was able to determine the date because she had taken the truck away from Happ on May 22. In closing, defense counsel argued that Mrs. Peckham's testimony had established that Happ was at her home on the night of the murder. Specifically, lead defense counsel Jeffery Pfister first addressed Ambrosino's constantly changing testimony in conjunction with Mrs. Peckham's testimony, stating: Okay. Now what does Vince Ambrosino really tell us? He was first interviewed eight-nine months after May of 1986. What does he tell you? First he says  he's got four stories. First, he says [Happ] was with him on Friday night which that's what he first told law enforcement. The defense attorneys weren't there, we weren't messing him up. Story number one: Bill was with me on that Friday night. The State said, well, let's look at your father's work record, see what that shows. He says okay. That fixes it in my mind, okay, it was Thursday night. That's story number two. Mr. Nacke, my co-counsel, takes his [Ambrosino's] sworn statement October 25, of '88. He then says, yes, I looked over all the records, I'm certain, the statement out in California  prosecutor was there  he says, yes, he was there on Friday night. All the testimony, he was there with him on Friday. He says it was Friday night. He gets into court, I'm refreshed again, I'll say he wasn't with me on the night of the 23rd, it was the night of the 22nd. State's own witness. Mr. Happ has an alibi for this crime [Mrs. Peckham]. He did not commit it. Mr. Pfister later elaborated on the alibi testimony, stating: The evidence he gave you established that for sure he was around on the 23rd, the night of the 23rd of May, 1986. He was home. She [Mrs. Peckham] explained to you how she knew for sure. She knew from the receipt from the truck repair, the truck maintenance. That refreshed her memory. She is not like Vince Ambrosino trying to pull something out of the air nine or ten months later. She was questioned earlier in August, a couple of other times, she didn't know then. The facts came to her when she was selling the car, and that's when it came back to her. . . . . One last piece of evidence, Mrs. Peckham's phone bill. . . . . 5-24, that's in the morning of the 24th, 8:12 a.m. Call was for thirteen minutes. 5-24. 5-24, that's Saturday morning, 8:12 a.m. That's not someone making this up because she's his grand  related to him, he's her grandnephew. A thirteen-minute phone call. She didn't make it. She didn't know this number. Here's the evidence, folks, Sharpsville, PA. Thirteen-minutes, 5-24. Twelve-thirteen minutes, 8:12 in the morning. Thirteen minutes, 8:25 a.m. She testified he was home that day. He was home all night. She was up and down with her sick husband. That's what she was there for. For thirteen minutes, he was making a call. That's there. I can't change it. She didn't make it. She didn't make it. At the rule 3.850 evidentiary hearing, the defense called Carlos Quinones, who was Ambrosino's stepfather. Mr. Quinones testified that he was brought to Florida by the State in 1989 while Happ's trial was being held and the State took his testimony in a deposition where counsel for both parties were present. In the deposition, Mr. Quinones testified that Happ had been at Ambrosino's mother's home on the evening of May 23 and had slept next to his stepson that evening in the living room of that home. Mr. Quinones testified that he last saw Happ on the evening of May 23 at no later than 11 p.m. and next saw Happ at quarter to 6 in the morning. Mr. Quinones was not called by either party to testify at the trial. During the trial, Happ was represented by lead counsel Pfister and co-counsel Nacke. At the rule 3.850 hearing, Mr. Pfister was not called as a witness. Mr. Nacke was called as a witness by the defendant and was questioned about why Mr. Quinones was not called during the trial. Q Okay. Can you tell the Court why Mr. Quinones was not called to testify at Mr. Happ's trial? A I don't have any recollection of why not. Q Okay? A I would say that if we brought him there and he maintained that testimony that he did in his deposition, that we would have called him. There must have been some reason, but what that is, I don't know, because I can't imagine with him saying that on a deposition, and we had called other witnesses, we would not be losing opening and closing arguments, so that wouldn't be a reason not to call him, after bringing him down from New York, I know there must have been a reason, but I cannot tell you that I remember why. In the trial court's amended order of November 5, 2003, denying the rule 3.850 motion, the trial court held, There is no deficient performance in failing to call witnesses who are neither credible, i.e. LaVenture, reliable, i.e. Partykas, or relevant, i.e. Quinones. The trial court erred in not providing its reasoning in respect to Mr. Quinones. [7] However, based on our complete review of the record, we affirm the trial court's decision to deny the 3.850 claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because Happ has failed to establish that his trial counsel was deficient in failing to call Mr. Quinones as an alibi witness. We reach this conclusion for several reasons. First, trial counsel did present an alibi witness, Mrs. Peckham, whom the defense noticed as its alibi witness prior to trial. After the trial had already commenced, the State brought Mr. Quinones to Florida to testify, and he was deposed during the trial. Although his testimony could also have been presented as alibi testimony, it was in direct conflict with Mrs. Peckham's alibi testimony. Based on this conflict, it is clear that defense counsel could not call both Mrs. Peckham and Mr. Quinones. Secondly, choosing to call Mr. Quinones rather than Mrs. Peckman would have created self-evident problems for the defense. In the State's case, Ambrosino testified that Happ had been at his mother's house on Thursday, May 22, not on Friday, May 23. Mr. Quinones' testimony would have been in conflict with Ambrosino's testimony as to the night on which Happ had spent the night with Ambrosino. There was no such conflict between the testimony of Mrs. Peckham and that of Mr. Ambrosino. Additionally, Mr. Quinones could not testify as to where Happ was during the crucial period of 11 p.m. to 5:45 a.m. Mr. Quinones testified that he did not see Happ during that period. As an additional matter, Mrs. Peckham was noticed as Happ's alibi witness, and Mr. Quinones was not. Finally, in the postconviction hearing, Happ did not call the lead defense counsel. The defendant only called Mr. Nacke, who testified that there was a reason that he and Mr. Pfister did not call Mr. Quinones, but he could not recall what the reason was. Based on this record, postconviction defense counsel has presented no basis for us to conclude that the failure to call Mr. Quinones was ineffective. As to the parts of the claim that defense counsel failed to object when the State asked Ambrosino leading questions and that defense counsel failed to effectively cross-examine Ambrosino, we likewise conclude that the trial court's denial of the claim of ineffectiveness should be affirmed. Many of the questions which are the basis of this claim are not leading questions. [8] This Court has long held that a question is not necessarily leading simply because it calls for a yes or no answer. Fla. Motor Lines Corp. v. Barry, 158 Fla. 123, 27 So.2d 753, 756 (1946). Instead, a question is leading when it points out the desired answer. Id. In respect to those questions which are leading in the context of Ambrosino's direct examination, it was not demonstrated that counsel was ineffective so as to breach the Strickland standard or that there was Strickland prejudice. Nor do we find that counsel's cross-examination was in violation of the Strickland standard or that there was Strickland prejudice.