Opinion ID: 1842460
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Vienna Convention

Text: Finally, Arbelaez argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the State's alleged violation of the Vienna Convention in its dealings with Arbelaez, who is a Colombian citizen. See Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, April 24, 1963, art. 36, 21 U.S.T. 77, 101, 596 U.N.T.S. 261 (requiring United States authorities to inform the [defendant] without delay of his rights to communicate with consular officers from his country of citizenship). Because Arbelaez failed to raise or preserve the issue of the alleged Vienna Convention violation, his appellate counsel would have been procedurally barred from raising the issue on appeal. See, e.g., Riechmann, 777 So.2d at 365 (stating that appellate counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise this [Vienna Convention] issue because it was not raised or preserved at trial). Again, Arbelaez's appellate counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a procedurally barred claim.