Opinion ID: 1129333
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Miscellaneous Ineffectiveness Claims

Text: Smith makes several unrelated ineffectiveness claims. Smith alleges that counsel was ineffective for failing to strike unnamed jurors for expressing bias in favor of imposing death upon conviction for first-degree murder and for failing to object to improper comments made by the State in its closing arguments. We affirm denial of these conclusory claims. Smith has presented neither facts nor argument to support the statements. Smith also alleges that defense counsel failed to adequately investigate two potential alibi witnesses, Smith's friends Khan Campbell and James Hawkins, and did not call these witnesses based solely on a feeling that they would commit perjury. This argument was not raised below and is therefore not preserved for appellate review. In his postconviction motion, Smith alleged the different claim that counsel was ineffective because he was laboring under a conflict of interest when he refused to present alibi witnesses at trial. The circuit court denied the claim, holding that the issue could and should have been raised on direct appeal. The court further held that the evidence demonstrated counsel's decision not to call the witnesses was strategic in nature and that counsel acted pursuant to a court ruling. We agree. Our review of the record reveals that the issue was thoroughly developed at retrial and therefore could have been raised on direct appeal. Further, competent, substantial evidence supports the circuit court's determination that counsel's decision not to call Campbell and Hawkins was both strategic and pursuant to court order. The retrial court determined that under rule 4-3.3 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar counsel could not call these two witnesses. Finally, Smith has failed to demonstrate any error. Accordingly, his claim of cumulative error merits no relief.