Opinion ID: 1939904
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appellate Counsel's Ineffectiveness Regarding Testimony Admitted Without Objection

Text: Brown argues that appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging the admissibility of handwriting expert testimony introduced at the trial. The expert's opinion was that the defendant probably executed certain credit card signatures, very probably executed the endorsement on a certain check, and executed the handwriting which appeared on the note. Brown's argument on this claim lacks specificity. The entire argument is as follows: Handwriting expert testimony was introduced at the trial. The range of that expert opinion was that the defendant probably executed certain credit card signatures; very probably executed the endorsement on a certain check; and executed the handwriting which appeared on the note. These statements of the expert, although not challenged by trial counsel as insufficient, clearly did not comport with the requirements of expert opinion testimony. There was no reasonable certainty expressed. Once again, these documents took on a greater import in this particular, circumstantial, prosecution. Even if we assume that Brown is attempting to raise an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel argument, it is facially and legally insufficient. See Jones v. Dugger, 518 So.2d 295, 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (stating that a habeas corpus petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel based on advice to abandon an appeal of an attempted murder conviction was facially insufficient under Strickland where the petitioner did not attempt to show how the outcome of the case would have been different had he persisted with the appeal).