Failure to challenge deputy’s testimony violated his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel.

So far my son’s Habeas Corpus is about appellate counsel. Next he delves into ineffectiveness of trial counsel.

Please note that by far, my son has not exhausted all the claims of ineffective of appellate counsel

 

What do habeas corpus petitions involve?

The petitions are challenges from prisoners primarily convicted of violent offenses and given correspondingly severe sentences. The issue most frequently raised is that the prisoner received ineffective assistance of counsel (such as the defense counsel’s not cross-examining a prosecution witness or not objecting to a denial of the court’s continuance motion); fewer issues claim constitutional violations by the trial court, prosecutor, or the police. (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/FHCRCSCC.PDF)

The problem that my son is encountering is that all of the above took place in my son’s case. Here we go.

Trial counsel’s performance was deficient because he did not cross examine the deputy who arrived at the scene of the attempted robbery; nor did defense attorney object when the prosecutor was allow to display the deputy’s personal gun.

The state was not in possession of the alleged gun used and showcasing the deputy’s gun was a violation of appellate constitutional right of due process. The deputy also described the victim’s emotional state without objection; nor did the deputy mention her emotional state in his report.

Defense attorney was in possession of the original police report, yet did not cross examine the deputy about his police report.

Defense attorney was deficient by not questioning the deputy about his statement about victim not being able to identify suspect. The police report says that the victim said the suspect was around 5’11”. At trial, the deputy agreed when the prosecutor says that the victim said the suspect was  5’7-5’11. So the suspect was short and tall.

Appellate argues that his lawyer’s failure to meaningfully challenge the deputy’s testimony violated his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel.

Trial counsel’s deficiency prejudiced the defendant because there was a reasonable probability that had the deputy been properly cross-examined, there was a reasonable probability that this error affected the outcome of the trial

Original Police Report of Deputy Followed by Trial Transcript of Testimony Given at Trial by Deputy 

Trial Counsel did not cross-examine

Original Police Report

On April16, 2011 at 2352 hours, I responded to 2XXX Summer Wind Drive,  Orlando, Florida (Sxxx  Wxxx Apartments),  in reference to an Attempted Robbery with a firearm.  Upon arrival I met with the victim, Jenna Slater, who advised the following  information.

On April 16, 2011 at approximately 2350 hours, Ms. Slxxx was in the parking  lot of the above stated address waiting for her friend to come down, at which time an unknown black male approached her and pointed a black semi-automatic handgun as he demanded all her money.  Ms. Slxxx told the suspect  she did not have any money as she opened her purse showing  the suspect  that her purse was empty.  The unknown suspect  immediately  left the scene on foot in an unknown direction. Ms. Slxxx immediately called the Orange  County  Sheriffs Office.

Ms. Slxxx described the unknown suspect  as an average  built black male, approximately 5’11”, wearing a dark colored hooded sweatshirt and blue jeans and a blue and white bandana  covering his face*** leaving only his eyes exposed****.

Ms. Slxxx stated she felt in fear for her life when the suspect  pointed the handgun at her.

Ms. Slxxx stated she would not be able to identify  the suspect  if she was to see him again.  Ms. Slxxx stated she did not give the suspect permission to point a gun at her in the attempts  to take her property,  she further stated she wanted to prosecute  and testify in court.

K9 handler D/S Leonard Pxxx (Kxxx) arrived on scene and conducted his investigation. The K9 track ended at

Hanging Moss Road and North Semoran Boulevard.

I obtained a sworn written statement  from Ms. Slxxx detailing the incident. I gave Ms. Slater a business  card and a case number. 

The following is taken directly from trial transcript. Q- Prosecutor – A. Deputy

 Q Good morning. Would you please state your name for the record?

 A Deputy Fredy XXXX

 Q Can you spell your last name?

 A   X-X-X-X-X-.

Q What agency do your work for?

A Orange County Sheriff’s Office.

Q How long have you been with the sheriff’s office?

A Five years.

Q Were you working on April 16th of 2011?

A Yes, I was.

Q Did you have the opportunity at approximately 11:47

p.m. on April 16th of 2011, to respond to 2605 Sxxxxxx Wind

Drive in Orlando?

A Yes, I did.

Q And the Axxxe Apartment complex, where is that

 located? 

A On Semoran.

Q Is that in Orange County?

A Yes.

Q Okay. And you responded to an armed robbery?

A Correct.

Q And you met with Ms. Slxxx when you responded?

A Yes.

Q Can you describe to the jury her emotional state

when you came to the scene?

A She was emotional. I don’t remember if she was

crying or not, but just seemed as a person that had just gone

passed something emotional, something dramatic, and was kind

of processing still everything that was going on.

Q Did she appear to be — to you to be in fear and

scared?

A Yes.

Q Okay. When — you were taking a statement from her

and you got the description of the person who robbed her,

right?

A Uh-huh. Yes. I’m sorry.

Q And the description that she gave you was black

male, young, between 5’7 and 5’11, average built, et cetera?

A Correct.

 Q Did she also tell you what firearm or what type of

 firearm this person had?

A Correct. She was trying to describe it. Normally,

what I do when they’re not able to describe because,

obviously, not everybody knows about handguns, I show her

mine and to see if it’s similar. And she said, yes, it was

like my handgun.

Q Do you have your handgun on you today?

A Yes, I do.

  1. QUADRI: Your Honor, may he please remove it

and show the jury what it looks like?

THE COURT: You may.

THE WITNESS: (Complying.)

BY MR. QUADRI:

Q Okay. Put it in front of you.

Is that handgun the same handgun you had back on

April 16, 2011?

A Yes.

Q What kind of handgun is that?

A It’s a Glock, .40 Glock.

Q What caliber is it?

A Forty.

Q Did you show that handgun to Ms. Slater back in

April of 2011?

A Yes.

Q And when you showed it to her, what exactly did you

say to her?

A It — normally, I showed her that one, is it

similar to this one or would it have a revolver, because a

lot of times — and she said, no, exactly like this one.

Q So the jury — in case someone’s not familiar with guns, a revolver is the —

A Correct, it has —

Q Cylinder?

A Yes.

Q Okay. And you showed her your actual firearm, the

handgun?

A Yes.

Q And what did she say when she — when you showed

her?

A It was like this one, yes.

Q Okay. And then you turned the case over to a

detective?

A Correct.

Q All right. Thank you.

  1. QUADRI: No other questions.

THE COURT: Thank you.

  1. SCHWARTZ: No cross, Your Honor.

THE COURT: May this witness be excused from

subpoena?

  1. QADRI: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. You may step down.

Next witness, State?

 

Please read my blog: http://justiceformyson2@aol.com. Please follow me on twitter. https://twitter.com/justiceforhim2, Vine and Instagram. email: justiceformyson2@aol.com 

Please write me at:

Justice For My Son 2

PO Box 70111

Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35407


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s