Opinion ID: 1795830
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Claims Summarily Denied by Circuit Court

Text: Sochor contests the circuit court's summary denial of five of his claims: (1) that the State violated Brady by withholding, or that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to discover and present, evidence that Sochor could have used to impeach witness Gary Sochor, specifically police interviews with Gary and reports of polygraph tests given to Gary by the police that were inconsistent with Gary's trial testimony; (2) that trial counsel was ineffective for failing adequately to investigate the circumstances surrounding Sochor's statements to police and for failing adequately to litigate the motion to suppress the statements; (3) that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise proper objections at trial and thereby preserve numerous meritorious issues for appeal; [25] (4) that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence of Sochor's mental health in support of his motion to suppress Sochor's statements to police; and (5) that the procedure by which trial courts in Broward County appoint special public defenders and expert witnesses creates conflicts of interest for the trial court judges that prevent them from being independent and neutral. We reject each of these claims. We reject claim (1) because the record conclusively establishes that Sochor is not entitled to relief on this claim and, therefore, was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the matter. See Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla.2000). The transcript of defense counsel's cross-examination of Gary Sochor reveals that counsel was indeed aware of Gary's prior statements to police and used them in an attempt to impeach Gary's trial testimony. As for the polygraph tests, their results would not have been admissible at trial without the consent of both parties. See Walsh v. State, 418 So.2d 1000, 1002 (Fla.1982). We reject claims (2), (3) and (4) because the allegations are merely conclusory. [26] See Gaskin v. State, 737 So.2d 509, 513 n. 7 (Fla.1999) (finding ineffective-assistance claims to be insufficient to warrant relief because petitioner did not allege[] how the outcome of his trial would have been different had counsel properly objected to the asserted error); see also Lawrence v. State, 831 So.2d 121, 133 (Fla. 2002) (A defendant may not simply file a motion for postconviction relief containing conclusory allegations that his or her trial counsel was ineffective and then expect to receive an evidentiary hearing.) (quoting Kennedy v. State, 547 So.2d 912, 913 (Fla. 1989)). And finally, we reject claim (5) because it is meritless on its face. See Rivera v. State, 717 So.2d 477, 480 n. 2 (Fla.1998).