Opinion ID: 6321839
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Eyewitness Accounts

Text: There were several discrepancies in eyewitness descriptions of the car that was used during the shooting. Barrett vacillated on the position of a sticker on the back window of the car and ultimately identified James’s car, which did not have a sticker on the back window, as the one used during the shooting. Sheppard argues - 19 - that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call witnesses to bring out inconsistencies in Barrett’s testimony that would have rebutted Barrett’s identification of Sheppard as the shooter. At the postconviction evidentiary hearing, Sheppard presented several witnesses whose descriptions of the car used during the shooting varied as to the color of the car and type of license plate. At the hearing, trial counsel conceded that there were slight variations in eyewitness descriptions of the car used during the shooting and that it may have been important to bring out Barrett’s prior inconsistent statements, but he maintained they were insignificant and did not overcome the overall consistencies in eyewitness descriptions of the car and Barrett’s identification of Sheppard at trial. We agree with the circuit court’s conclusion that trial counsel’s failure to challenge Barrett’s description of the car and to investigate and call certain witnesses at trial to rebut Barrett’s testimony did not fall below the standard guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. As trial counsel explained, attempting to challenge slight inconsistencies among witness descriptions of the car would - 20 - have highlighted the overall consistency in their identification of Sheppard. Moreover, the circuit court cited competent, substantial evidence in support of its determinations that the eyewitness testimony offered at the postconviction evidentiary hearing, including by Avery Evans, Asia Ramsey Iszard, and Ava Webb, either failed to contradict Barrett’s account of the murder, corroborated Barrett’s account, or was not credible. Credibility determinations are the province of the trial court and will not be disturbed so long as they are supported by competent, substantial evidence, as they are in this case. See Foster v. State, 929 So. 2d 524, 537 (Fla. 2006) (explaining that the trial court is in a better position to judge the credibility of witnesses). Therefore, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of relief.