Court Opinion

ID: 9379367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-15 15:03:56.05849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:40.028586
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                        Opinion filed March 15, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                              No. 3D22-57
                      Lower Tribunal No. F08-23160
                          ________________

                              Juan Aguilar,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                          The State of Florida,
                                  Appellee.

      An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Miguel M. de
la O, Judge.

      Law Office of Deana K. Marshall, P.A., and Deana K. Marshall
(Riverview), for appellant.

      Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, HENDON and GORDO, JJ.

     GORDO, J.
      Juan Aguilar appeals the trial court’s denial of his post-conviction

motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 alleging eight

grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R.

App. P. 9.140(b)(D). Because the trial court properly granted an evidentiary

hearing as to ground five and correctly denied all other grounds, we affirm.

See Arbelaez v. State, 898 So. 2d 25, 32 (Fla. 2005) (“After an evidentiary

hearing on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we review the

deficiency and prejudice prongs as ‘mixed questions of law and fact subject

to a de novo review standard but . . . the trial court’s factual findings are to

be given deference. So long as the [trial court’s] decisions are supported by

competent, substantial evidence, this Court will not substitute its judgment

for that of the trial court on questions of fact and, likewise, on the credibility

of the witnesses and the weight to be given to the evidence.’”) (quoting

Sochor v. State, 883 So. 2d 766, 781 (Fla. 2004)); Smithers v. State, 18 So.

3d 460, 464 (Fla. 2009) (“Without a showing of such actual bias of the juror,

the defendant cannot establish the prejudice required by Strickland.”); Owen

v. State, 986 So. 2d 534, 546 (Fla. 2008) (“Trial counsel cannot be deemed

ineffective for failing to present inadmissible evidence.”); Darling v. State,

966 So. 2d 366, 377 (Fla. 2007) (“[T]his Court has held that even if alternate

witnesses could provide more detailed testimony, trial counsel is not

                                        2
ineffective for failing to present cumulative evidence.”); Nelson v. State, 73

So. 3d 77, 89 (Fla. 2011) (“When a witness is unavailable to testify, trial

counsel is not automatically ineffective for his or her failure to present that

witness . . . Furthermore, even if a witness was available to testify and

counsel was deficient in not presenting his or her testimony during trial,

counsel is not ineffective if that testimony would have been cumulative to

other evidence presented, because such cumulative evidence removes a

defendant’s ability to establish prejudice.”); Israel v. State, 985 So. 2d 510,

520 (Fla. 2008) (“[W]here the individual claims of error alleged are either

procedurally barred or without merit, the claim of cumulative error also

necessarily fails.”) (quoting Parker v. State, 904 So. 2d 370, 380 (Fla. 2005)).

      Affirmed.

                                       3