Opinion ID: 1129288
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alibi Investigation

Text: The first issue is whether Lott's trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate his alibi. The circuit court concluded that the alibi investigation was neither deficient nor prejudicial. We need not address the deficiency prong, however, because Lott clearly has not shown prejudice. See, e.g., Pietri v. State, 885 So.2d 245, 256 (Fla.2004) (stating that a court considering a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel `need not make a specific ruling on the performance component of the test when it is clear that the prejudice component is not satisfied') (quoting Maxwell v. Wainwright, 490 So.2d 927, 932 (Fla. 1986)). At the evidentiary hearing, Lott presented only one new alibi witness, Elmer Jones. Lott claimed that he stopped at Jones's fruit stand near Starke on Sunday afternoon, during the time frame of the murder, and spoke with him about fishing and Lake Okeechobee. Jones did recall speaking with Lott about those subjects. He thought the conversation must have occurred on a weekend afternoon, because his stand was only open on weekends. But he could not pinpoint the date of the conversation. It could have taken place anywhere from the early eighties up until 1996. Moreover, Jones testified that Lott had been by my place more than once and would come by whenever I would go out to bring the trailer in, making it even more difficult to verify whether the conversation occurred on the weekend of the murder. Lott's mother also thought that her son visited Jones's stand multiple times, which Lott denied. Our confidence in the verdict is not undermined by Jones's vague testimony. As the circuit court emphasized in finding no prejudice, Jones could not even narrow the date down to the year in which he believed this possible encounter took place. He could in no way place Mr. Lott in North Florida at the time of the murder. Without corroboration of a specific date and time, Jones's testimony would have been of minimal value as alibi evidence. Moreover, even if the jury believed that Lott did speak with Jones on the Sunday afternoon in question, it still would have left plenty of room in the twenty-seven hour timeline for Lott to have committed the murder. Given that Lott's palm prints were found inside the victim's home, along with shoe impressions consistent with his size 9 Spalding shoes and fibers consistent with his Hanes T-shirt, and given that he used the victim's ATM card shortly after the murder and then tried to sell her jewelry, we remain confident in the verdict.