Opinion ID: 1891055
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure of Appellate Counsel to Challenge Bonifay's Statements about Archer

Text: Archer first claims that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue on direct appeal that the trial court erred when it allowed the following two pieces of testimony: (1) Bonifay's testimony that he was afraid of Archer's gun and associates; and (2) Bonifay's testimony that Archer had a source of income other than Archer's work that generated significant amounts of cash. We do not find that Archer has presented a basis for habeas relief. The claim was not adequately preserved at trial. After Bonifay stated that he was afraid of Archer's gun and associates, defense counsel immediately asked the judge if counsel could approach the bench. A short colloquy then ensued between counsel and the judge, at which time defense counsel expressed his concern that objectionable testimony would come up under the prosecutor's new line of questioning. However, defense counsel did not make a specific objection to the gun and associates statement. In fact, defense counsel had not made any objection with respect to Bonifay's testimony up to that point. During the colloquy, the trial judge ruled that he would allow Bonifay to testify regarding his opinion relative to the money that has been brought directly into issue in this case by [defense counsel's] very strong and direct positive continuous questioning about that. Defense counsel then made an objection on the basis that Bonifay's expected testimony would be an opinion. Defense counsel did not make an objection on the basis that the testimony was inflammatory or irrelevant. After the testimony resumed, Bonifay testified without any objection by defense counsel that he believed that Archer had a source of income other than Archer's work that generated significant amounts of cash. Thus, no specific objections were made to the statements Archer now challenges. Moreover, the only general objection that was made was based on a different issue than the one that Archer now asserts. Accordingly, we find that the issue was not preserved for direct appeal. Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332, 338 (Fla.1982) (Except in cases of fundamental error, an appellate court will not consider an issue unless it was presented to the lower court. Furthermore, in order for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.). We also reject Archer's claim that the statements caused fundamental error because they were so egregious as to deprive Petitioner of a fair trial. Archer has not met the high burden of showing that the trial court's error in admitting the statements reached down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the error. Bonifay's statement did not link Archer to any criminal activity other than the Trout Auto Parts robbery and murder. Bonifay never stated that Archer's source of income was illegal. He simply stated that Archer had a source of income besides work that generated large sums of cash. Nor did Bonifay's testimony about Archer's gun and associates implicate Archer in any illegal enterprise. Bonifay stated only that these things were the sources of Bonifay's fear of Archer. We therefore deny habeas relief on this claim.