Opinion ID: 1597851
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Habeas Corpus Claim Two Photographs

Text: In Bates' second habeas claim, he alleges that the admission of twelve photographs was error and that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this issue on appeal. We deny relief on this claim. Photographs are admissible if they are probative to an issue in dispute and they are not so shocking as to defeat their value. Looney v. State, 803 So.2d 656, 668-70 (Fla.2001). Admission of photographs is a matter for the discretion of the trial court, and we will not disturb such rulings absent a clear abuse of discretion. Rodriguez v. State, 919 So.2d 1252, 1286 (Fla.2005). The photographs at issue here were relevant to issues in dispute at Bates' resentencing. They were relevant to how this murder was committed, to support the State's argument that the murder was committed in the course of a felony, and to support the applicability of the HAC aggravator. We have previously held that similar bases were valid grounds for admitting photographs. See, e.g., England v. State, 940 So.2d 389, 399-400 (Fla. 2006). Counsel was therefore not ineffective for declining to raise this issue.