Opinion ID: 1685081
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: absence from proceedings

Text: Next, Muhammad claims that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on appeal the issue of two alleged incidents of ex parte communications with the State, which occurred during the penalty phase of Muhammad's trial. [14] The first ex parte communication that Muhammad alleges occurred took place during the sentencing phase when the record reflects that Muhammad may have been removed from the courtroom before a presentencing investigation (PSI) was ordered. [15] Muhammad's second allegation of ex parte communication stems from a sidebar conference while the court was delivering its sentencing announcement. [16] We disagree with Muhammad's claim that appellate counsel was ineffective. Notably, Muhammad was physically present in the courtroom in both instances and the record does not reflect that Muhammad was actually removed from the courtroom in the first instance. On neither occasion did Muhammad object to being excluded from the process, even though he was present in the courtroom and would have had the opportunity to do so. Nevertheless, even if we were to conclude Muhammad was absent in both instances, we would deem these absences harmless. Muhammad claims his case is akin to Proffitt v. Wainwright, 685 F.2d 1227, 1255-1256 (11th Cir.1982), where the Eleventh Circuit determined that a defendant's absence during a pretrial hearing was harmful error. However, the defendant in Proffitt was absent from the entire hearing, at which the State and defense were offering arguments on court-ordered psychiatric reports. Id. at 1257. The Eleventh Circuit refused to find the defendant's absence harmless, in part because if the defendant had been present he could have informed his attorney and doctors that he was taking antipsychotic medication during the time he was being observed for the preparation of the reports. Id. at 1260-61. In the instant case, the alleged absences were of a much more brief duration than that which occurred in Proffitt and, while he may have been briefly absent from proceedings, Muhammad was present in the courtroom and would have understood from the context that he either should object or present arguments. Assuming he was taken from the courtroom in the first instance, Muhammad's absence from the brief portion of the trial where the judge ordered the PSI was harmless. In the second instance, even if Muhammad was absent from the sidebar, the court implicitly presented Muhammad an opportunity to respond by explaining what had occurred during the sidebar. Given Muhammad's ineffectual penalty phase argument and failure to present any mitigation, his presence on either occasion would not have served the purpose that the defendant's presence would have served in Proffitt. Because the result of either alleged absence was harmless, appellate counsel's decision not to appeal this issue is not of such magnitude as to constitute a serious error or substantial deficiency falling measurably outside the range of professionally acceptable performance. Pope, 496 So.2d at 800.