Opinion ID: 1786306
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: habeas closing argument issue

Text: In Bowles' first habeas claim, he asserts that certain comments made by the prosecutor in closing arguments were error and that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this properly preserved issue. Claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel are appropriately presented in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1069 (Fla.2000). Consistent with the Strickland standard, to grant habeas relief based on ineffectiveness of counsel, this Court must determine first, whether the alleged omissions are of such magnitude as to constitute a serious error or substantial deficiency falling measurably outside the range of professionally acceptable performance and, second, whether the deficiency in performance compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence in the correctness of the result. Pope v. Wainwright, 496 So.2d 798, 800 (Fla.1986); see also Freeman, 761 So.2d at 1069; Thompson v. State, 759 So.2d 650, 660 (Fla.2000). In raising such a claim, [t]he defendant has the burden of alleging a specific, serious omission or overt act upon which the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be based. Freeman, 761 So.2d at 1069; see also Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997, 1001 (Fla.1981). If a legal issue `would in all probability have been found to be without merit' had counsel raised the issue on direct appeal, the failure of appellate counsel to raise the meritless issue will not render appellate counsel's performance ineffective. Rutherford v. Moore, 774 So.2d 637, 643 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Williamson v. Dugger, 651 So.2d 84, 86 (Fla.1994)). The first allegedly improper comment made by the prosecutor during closing argument was: [STATE]: The mitigators presented to you yesterday, and the instructions that the Court will read to you regarding what possible mitigators may exist in terms of your decision as to how much weight  first of all, if they do exist, how much weight they should be given [sic] are arguably accepted. And I would submit to you the question is how much weight do you put to the three mitigators that are going to be submitted to you. MR. WHITE: Objection, Your Honor, to numbering the mitigators. THE COURT: Sustained. (Emphasis added.) Later, the prosecutor made the second allegedly improper comment: [STATE]: And the law requires you to evaluate the aggravators, how much weight do you give them? I would submit there is substantial weight there. And I would submit the mitigators in this case have not been proven in terms of the statutory ones, and then there is one that's a catchall that MR. WHITE: Objection to that characterization of the mitigators, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. WHITE: Your Honor, I would ask for a curative instruction. THE COURT: The jury should disregard the comments of catchall. Proceed. (Emphasis added.) Bowles argues that these comments denigrated his mitigation and told the jury that his mitigation was limited to three mitigators. Bowles further states that the prosecutor effectively told the jury that it was a numbers game and all that the jury had to do was add up and compare the number of mitigators versus aggravators. As this Court has noted, [a]ny error in prosecutorial comments is harmless if there is no reasonable probability that those comments affected the verdict. Hitchcock v. State, 755 So.2d 638, 643 (Fla. 2000) (citing King v. State, 623 So.2d 486, 487 (Fla.1993)). Bowles has not demonstrated a reasonable probability that these comments affected the verdict. Therefore, this claim was meritless. Counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim. Rutherford, 774 So.2d at 643. Accordingly, we deny relief on this claim.