Opinion ID: 2497384
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Testimony of Rimmer's Wife

Text: Rimmer's next claim of ineffective assistance of counsel relates to the testimony of his wife, Joanne, who was a witness for the defense. Joanne testified during direct examination that Rimmer had an alibi for the time of the robbery because he left home with his sons that morning to go fishing. She also testified that she, not Rimmer, drove the Ford Probe that morning, and he drove the Oldsmobile. During cross-examination, the State sought to attack her credibility and to use her knowledge of Rimmer's income and monthly expenses to suggest that Rimmer had an inordinate amount of money in his possession at the time of his arrest. Rimmer argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to rehabilitate Joanne's testimony and that as a result, the jury was less likely to believe the alibi she provided. Here, Rimmer has demonstrated neither deficient performance nor prejudice. When asked about his failure to address Joanne's testimony, counsel testified that he did not object because he did not believe that the testimony was inconsistent with the defense theory, and he did not want to bring attention to what he believed was an insignificant issue. The circuit court concluded that counsel's handling of Joanne's testimony was a matter of reasoned trial strategy and not a deficiency. We find no error in the court's determination that counsel's strategic decision was reasonable. Rimmer also argues that counsel's failure to object to certain questions asked by the State constituted ineffective assistance of counsel because the questions were an improper comment on his right to remain silent. Rimmer's entire argument on this issue consists of the following: At trial, the State questioned Mr. Rimmer's wife about communications she had had with her husband pertaining to the case. Trial counsel failed to object for no strategic reason. Trial counsel's failure to object was deficient. Rimmer argued on direct appeal that the prosecutor improperly solicited comment on his right to remain silent by asking his wife, Joanne Rimmer, about her conversations with [Rimmer] as to his involvement in the double homicide. Rimmer, 825 So.2d at 322. Although we concluded that the State's question [came] very close to infringing on [Rimmer's] right to remain silent, we nonetheless determined that the question coupled with the answer [that she did not ask Rimmer about the murders] was not fairly susceptible of being interpreted by the jury as a comment on the defendant's failure to testify. Id. Because we previously concluded that this issue was without merit, Rimmer's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is likewise without merit.