Opinion ID: 1828411
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Comment Regarding Mitigating Factors

Text: Owen argues that the trial court erred in denying his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial court's statements to two jurors that the mitigating circumstances would be spelled out or defined. The postconviction trial court found Owen's claim to be without merit because the trial court properly instructed the jury regarding mitigating factors and the record dispels any notion that trial counsel in some way left this jury with no guidance, instruction, or definition of what nonstatutory mitigating evidence was present and should be considered. Postconviction Order at 19. We agree. Owen has not demonstrated prejudice because the jury was properly instructed on the topic of mitigation. See Belcher v. State, 851 So.2d 678, 684-85 (Fla.2003) (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by giving catch-all jury instruction about nonstatutory mitigation instead of Belcher's list of nonstatutory mitigating factors). The catch-all instruction in Belcher was almost identical to Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 7.11, which was given in Owen. Moreover, trial counsel was not deficient for failing to object to the comments because the comments were not improper. See Darling, 966 So.2d at 383 (holding counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a meritless objection). The trial judge did not tell jurors that he, the trial judge, would be defining the mitigating factors, only that they would be explained. Counsel knew that she would have the opportunity to explain the mitigating factors during penalty-phase closing argument, and she did detail the statutory mitigating factors and the proposed nonstatutory mitigating factors at that time.