ANGEL ROSADO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Angel Rosado appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, claiming his trial counsel was ineffective in several respects. The court affirms, finding no valid ineffective assistance claims.
The court held that counsel was not ineffective because: (1) the strategy of not calling a witness whose failure to hear a statement proved little was reasonable; (2) the Fridley argument was not raised in the trial court and will not be considered on appeal; (3) Rosado showed no prejudice regarding the gun cleaning kit investigation; and (4) any prosecutorial impropriety regarding Fridley's credibility was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial.
[1] An appellate court will not consider an argument that was not raised in the motion for post-trial relief presented to the trial judge.
[2] Counsel is not ineffective for failing to investigate a fact if the defendant does not suggest how that fact is relevant to any issue in the case.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“At trial (and in his motion for post trial relief), Rosado's position was that he made no incriminating statement. It is understandable, then, why his attorney did not look for witnesses to explain the source of the knowledge depicted by such a statement.”
Establishes the inconsistency in Rosado's ineffective assistance claim and the reasonableness of counsel's strategy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1990, Rosado was convicted of first-degree murder of his wife. At trial, Rosado's position was that he made no incriminating statement. Rosado now …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prosecutorial Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
[*634] HARRIS, Judge.
Although we denied rehearing, we nevertheless find that the earlier opinion should be corrected. We therefore, substitute this corrected opinion for the earlier one.
In 1990, Angel Rosado was convicted of the first degree murder of his wife. In his current pro se appeal of the denial of his motion for post conviction relief, he urges that his counsel was ineffective in several respects. First, he contends that his counsel failed to discover witnesses who would confirm that Rosado made no incriminating statement or, if he made such a statement, that he learned the information from a police report and did not gain the information first hand from committing the murder. Apparently Rosado does not see the inconsistency in this argument.
At trial (and in his motion for post trial relief), Rosado’s position was that he made no incriminating statement. It is understandable, then, why his attorney did not look for witnesses to explain the source of the knowledge depicted by such a statement. The attorney was not ineffective in this regard. Rosado’s attorney did find a witness who would testify that he did not hear Rosa-do make the statement, but the attorney did not call the witness because the witness’s failure to hear a statement was little proof that the statement was not made. We cannot fault the attorney’s strategy in not calling such witness.
In his second point, Rosado argues that his attorney was ineffective in not presenting witnesses who would contradict Mr. Fridley’s allegations that Rosado also made an incriminating statement to him. This argument was not raised in the motion for post trial relief presented to the trial judge and will not be considered on appeal. Doyle v. State, 526 So. 2d 909 (Fla.1988).
In point three, Rosado complains that his attorney failed to properly investigate a gun cleaning kit to see if it was open or not. He does not suggest how such information is relevant to any issue in his ease. Therefore, he has shown no prejudice in regard to the gun cleaning kit.
Finally, Rosado argues that counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument that Mr. Frid-ley had no reason to lie. Even if the argument was somehow improper, it was not so improper or prejudicial as to require a new trial.
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Renardo Ferguson v. State, 101 So. 3d 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…ation ineffective in the constitutional sense. See Jimenez v. State, 997 So. 2d 1056, 1068 (Fla.2008) (“[Tjrial counsel was not deficient for the failure to discover ... information that was neither exculpatory nor impeaching.”). In Rosado v. State, 693 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), the defendant was charged with first degree murder. After conviction and sentence, the defendant filed a Rule 3.850 motion, which claimed, among other things, that trial counsel was ineffective for not investigating a gun c…
-
Bellamy v. State, 834 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…an be raised any time, pursuant to error coram nobis. It appears that Bellamy currently resides in a New Jersey prison. However, these issues were not raised in the trial court below and therefore we will not consider them here. See Rosado v. State, 693 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). ■AFFIRMED. THOMPSON, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Doyle v. State, 526 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 1988)