GABRIEL BOWEN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to move to exclude a photographic lineup where the photos were edited by a third-party company to ensure consistency and there is no evidence the lineup was unnecessarily or inappropriately suggestive.
[1] A defendant seeking postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate deficient performance by counsel.
[2] Counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to make a meritless argument.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to make a meritless argument”
Court's rationale for finding no deficient performance by trial counsel in failing to challenge the photographic lineup
Gabriel Bowen was convicted of crimes and sought post-conviction relief. Police used a photographic lineup that had been edited by FaceLogic to remove…
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 Suggestive Identification Procedures cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED GABRIEL BOWEN,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D22-1546 LT Case No. 2017-CF-2572-A STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed January 20, 2023 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, Robert W. Hodges, Judge. Gabriel Bowen, Crestview, pro se.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and L. Charlene Matthews, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. EDWARDS, J.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 Motion, which raised two grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. As to Ground One, Appellant failed to demonstrate deficient performance of his trial counsel with regard to the use of a certain out-ofcourt photographic lineup that was presented to the two victims, only one of whom picked out Appellant. Every photograph in the array had been edited to depict the person as though he were wearing a black t-shirt, consistent with the clothing described by the victims.
The photo lineup employed by police during its investigation contained an image of Appellant that had been edited by FaceLogic, a third-party company, to remove a facial tattoo and scar or cut on his face. Evidence was presented that this was done in order for the various photographs in the photo array to be more consistent with each other, as it would be difficult to find a sufficient number of filler photographs of subjects visually similar to Appellant who would also have a facial tattoo and scar. No evidence was offered to suggest that any aspect of the photographic lineup procedure employed here was otherwise unusual or in any manner improper. The postconviction court found that the record confirmed that the photographic lineup employed was not unnecessarily or inappropriately suggestive; thus, it did not taint either the out-of-court or in-court identification of Appellant as the one who committed the crimes.1 The court also noted that there was other evidence presented by the State upon which the jury could have relied in finding Appellant guilty. The postconviction court properly concluded that any motion to prohibit or limit evidence regarding the photo lineup would have been denied. We agree with that court’s observation that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to make a meritless argument. See Schoenwetter v. State, 46 So. 3d 535, 546 (Fla. 2010).
Accordingly, we affirm as to Ground One. We affirm as to Ground Two without need for discussion.
AFFIRMED.
EVANDER and HARRIS, JJ., concur.