Opinion ID: 1129443
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Absence During Bench Conference

Text: We next turn to the allegations of penalty phase ineffectiveness. Morris asserts that trial counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase in holding discussions with the trial court outside of his presence and without a waiver from him. [12] A defendant has a constitutional right to be present at all `crucial stages of his trial where his absence might frustrate the fairness of the proceedings.' Orme v. State, 896 So.2d 725, 738 (Fla.2005) (quoting Garcia v. State, 492 So.2d 360 (Fla.1986)). However, this right does not confer upon the defendant the right to be present at every conference at which a matter pertinent to the case is discussed, or even at every conference with the trial judge at which a matter relative to the case is discussed. Orme, 896 So.2d at 738 (quoting United States v. Vasquez, 732 F.2d 846, 848 (11th Cir.1984)). Accordingly, this constitutional right does not extend to bench conferences involving purely legal matters because a defendant's presence at such conferences would be of no assistance to counsel. Rutherford v. Moore, 774 So.2d 637, 647 (Fla.2000); see also Hardwick v. Dugger, 648 So.2d 100, 105 (Fla.1994) ([A] defendant has no constitutional right to be present at the bench during conferences that involve purely legal matters.). In this case, Morris cannot meet the prejudice prong of Strickland. We have repeatedly rejected claims of ineffective assistance resulting from a defendant's absence during a bench conference when the defendant has failed to show that anything was discussed at the conference that required the defendant's consultation. See, e.g., Orme, 896 So.2d at 738 (concluding that defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from his absence because he has not shown that anything discussed during the bench conferences required his consultation); Vining v. State, 827 So.2d 201, 218 (Fla.2002) (determining that defendant has not shown that any matter discussed during these bench conferences required his consultation nor has he demonstrated any prejudice from his absence); Hardwick, 648 So.2d at 105 (concluding ineffective assistance claim was meritless because defendant has not shown nor attempted to show that any matter was determined at these conferences that required his consultation). In this case, even if trial counsel was deficient in holding a bench conference with the trial judge outside of Morris's presence and without a waiver by him, Morris has not established that anything was discussed during this conference that required his consultation. Nor has he established that the conference involved anything but purely legal matters to which his constitutional right to be present does not extend. Thus, we conclude that Morris has failed to demonstrate under Strickland that he was prejudiced by counsel's conduct. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief as to this claim.