Opinion ID: 1684595
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Object to the Prosecutor's Comments During Closing Argument

Text: Zakrzewski claims that defense counsel should have objected to several comments made by the prosecutor during the State's closing argument. This Court has recognized that the decision not to object to improper comments is fraught with danger... because it might cause an otherwise appealable issue to be considered procedurally barred. Chandler v. State, 848 So.2d 1031, 1045 (Fla.2003). However, this Court has also noted that a decision not to object to an otherwise objectionable comment may be made for strategic reasons. Id.; see also Ferguson v. State, 593 So.2d 508, 511 (Fla.1992) (The decision not to object is a tactical one.); McCrae v. State, 510 So.2d 874, 878 (Fla.1987) (Whether to object to an improper comment can be a matter of trial strategy upon which a reasonable discretion is allowed to counsel.). After holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Zakrzewski's trial counsel, Issac Bruce Koran and Elton Killam, both had vast experience in criminal defense and during the course of the penalty phase and throughout closing arguments... utilized a defense strategy and used their judgment to make a reasoned strategic decision on whether to object or not to the prosecutor's statements during closing argument. Thus, the trial court concluded that defense counsel's performance was not deficient. We agree with this determination. Significantly, with respect to defense counsel's performance during the entire penalty phase proceeding, Zakrzewski's only claim of ineffectiveness is based on defense counsel's failure to object to specific comments made during the prosecutor's closing argument. Our review of the entire penalty phase demonstrates that defense counsel presented substantial mitigation through both lay and expert witnesses, and presented a thorough penalty phase closing argument. Further, during the prosecutor's closing argument, defense counsel did object and motion for a mistrial when the prosecutor asked the jury to imagine the terror and horror Anna must have felt when she was forced down into the bath tub with her brother's mutilated body. Both Killam and Koran testified at the evidentiary hearing that they did not object to the identified comments based either on strategy or a belief that a particular comment was unobjectionable. The trial court found that these experienced trial lawyers did in fact make reasonable strategic decisions regarding the failure to object and, thus, trial counsel's performance was not deficient. Cf. Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 2535, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (quoting Strickland and reiterating that strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable). In light of the entire record in this case and trial counsel's overall performance during the penalty phase, we conclude that Zakrzewski has failed to demonstrate deficient performance regarding his trial counsel's failure to object to comments during closing argument. Thus, we affirm the trial court's denial of relief on this claim.