Opinion ID: 2535642
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Call Oscar Ray Bolin, Sr.

Text: Second, Bolin alleges that counsel was ineffective for failing to call his father, Oscar Ray Bolin, Sr., to testify in order to rebut Ferns' testimony. The circuit court denied Bolin's second claim, stating: The testimony referred to in this claim is, once again, Danny Ferns' testimony that he saw blood on the ground at the scene of the murder. Defendant claims that trial counsel failed to investigate and call as a witness Oscar Ray Bolin, Senior, who was present and available to testify. Bolin Senior would have testified that he was a carnival worker, and that he sprayed [sic] painted several items used in his carnival concession in the area where Ferns saw what he believed to be blood, but was actually red spray paint. Bolin Senior would also have testified that there were no hoses remaining on the family property on Valencia Drive, as he took all hoses with him in his travels with the carnival. Mr. Swisher testified that he spoke to Bolin Senior, but that he made a tactical decision not to call him as a witness for several reasons. First, there is the fact that Bolin Senior was out of state for the two weeks prior to the murder and any spray painting would have been done prior to his departure. See Trial Transcript, p. 1472. Second, there was no way to independently corroborate Bolin Senior's testimony 15 years after the murder. See November 16, 2006 Evidentiary Hearing Transcript, pp. 75-76, 99-101. Third, there is the perceived bias on the part of a father testifying for his son. See id. at 76. Fourth, counsel did not want to risk his being discredited in the guilt phase if he needed him to testify in the penalty phase. See id. at 103, 106-107. And fifth, Bolin Senior was not a good witness. See id. at 75-77. Not only did counsel believe so based on his own interview with Bolin Senior, but he testified that both Defendant and his wife, Rosalie Bolin, told him that Bolin Senior would not be a good witness. See id. Furthermore, the information about the spray painting of carnival equipment and the removal of all hoses from the property was presented to the jury in the testimony of Gertrude Bolin, Defendant's stepmother. See Trial Transcript, pp. 1470; November 16, 2006 Evidentiary Hearing Transcript, p. 74-76. Whether the decision not to call Bolin Senior as a witness was the best tactical decision is not at issue in this proceeding. As long as an attorney has considered and rejected alternative courses of action, tactical or strategic choices do not constitute deficient conduct on the part of the attorney. See Henry v. State, 948 So.2d 609 (Fla.2006). The decision not to call Bolin Senior was a tactical decision made by counsel, and it was made with the agreement of Defendant. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that counsel was not deficient, and the claim is denied accordingly. We agree. Here, both Bolin and his wife, Rosalie, told trial counsel that Bolin, Sr. would not be a good witness. Swisher confirmed this independently, and determined that Bolin, Sr. would not be a good witness. We have previously found that trial counsel is not ineffective where counsel decides not to present a witness with questionable credibility. See Evans v. State, 995 So.2d 933, 943 (Fla.2008) (trial counsel's tactical decision not to present witnesses with questionable credibility does not constitute ineffective assistance); Lamarca v. State, 931 So.2d 838, 848-49 (Fla. 2006) (reasonable trial strategy for counsel not to call people who were not credible and would not have made good defense witnesses); Marquard v. State, 850 So.2d 417, 427 (Fla.2002) (denying ineffective assistance claim for failing to call witness when counsel believed the witness would not exonerate the defendant). In Evans, the defendant raised ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to call witnesses Evans alleged could have contradicted the State's timing of the murder. Evans, 995 So.2d at 943. At the evidentiary hearing, one of the witnesses testified that they had all been drunk the evening of the murder but he believed that the shots occurred between 9:30 and 10:00 p.m. Id. The witness also stated that he had injured his neck in an accident after the crime but before the trial and had experienced memory lapses since then. Id. We ruled that counsel was not ineffective for not calling the witnesses because both had questionable credibility. Id. Likewise, in the present case, Swisher was concerned about Bolin, Sr.'s credibility after being informed by both Bolin and Rosalie that he would not be a good witness. This concern, coupled with Bolin, Sr.'s relationship as Bolin's father, led Swisher to make the tactical decision to reserve Bolin, Sr.'s limited credibility for the penalty phase. We do not find this decision to be unreasonable. Similarly, in Lamarca, we found it a reasonable trial strategy to avoid calling witnesses believed to have questionable credibility. Lamarca, 931 So.2d at 848-49. Although the credibility issues presented in Lamarca significant prison record, hearing difficulties, inconsistent and contradictory statements, and drunkenness-are distinguishable from the present case, Swisher's decision was nevertheless reasonable. Swisher testified that he was concerned that using a mother, father, and wife to support the defense would improperly shift the jury's focus to the defense's credibility. There was no other evidence to corroborate the testimony that Bolin, Sr. would have provided, and his testimony would have contradicted Swisher's theory of the case that Ferns could not have seen any substance on the ground. This was a reasonable tactical decision. In Marquard, this Court found no ineffective assistance where counsel chose not to call witnesses who would not have exonerated the defendant. Marquard, 850 So.2d at 427. Despite Marquard's assertions, the potential witnesses would have confirmed his participation in the crime. In the present case, it is not likely that Bolin, Sr. would have exonerated Bolin. His testimony could not be corroborated and would not establish definitively that Bolin could not have committed the crime. As stated above, Ferns' testimony was corroborated by Phillip Bolin. Even if Bolin, Sr. had testified that there could have been spray paint on the ground, it was not likely to discredit Ferns' version of events. Additionally, Bolin cannot establish that the outcome of the trial would have been different had Bolin, Sr. testified. Bolin, Sr. would have testified that he spray painted equipment using many colors, including red, approximately three weeks prior to Matthews' murder. It is not likely the spray paint would have remained on the grass, or thatif it hadFerns would have mistaken the mixture of paint colors as blood. Further, it is not likely that the jury would have believed Ferns mistook weeks-old spray paint for blood. Because Bolin has failed to demonstrate that counsel was deficient or that he was prejudiced, this claim is denied. Accordingly, we affirm the Sixth Circuit's denial of Bolin's motion for postconviction relief. It is so ordered. CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur. QUINCE, J., recused.