Ray Jackson v. State of Florida , 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 398 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •           Supreme Court of Florida
    ____________
    No. SC12-1159
    ____________
    RAY JACKSON,
    Appellant,
    vs.
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    [June 5, 2014]
    PER CURIAM.
    Ray Jackson and codefendant Michael Wooten were indicted and tried
    together for the kidnapping and first-degree murder of Pallis Paulk. Jackson v.
    State, 
    25 So. 3d 518
    , 522 (Fla. 2009). Both defendants were convicted of the
    crimes, and Jackson was sentenced to death. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed
    Jackson’s convictions and sentence of death. 
    Id. at 536
    .
    Jackson filed an initial motion to vacate his judgment of conviction for first-
    degree murder and sentence of death, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal
    Procedure 3.851. In addition, he filed a motion for DNA testing, pursuant to
    Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. After holding an evidentiary hearing on
    some of the claims, the postconviction court denied relief, a holding that Jackson
    contests. The postconviction court also denied his request for DNA testing.
    Because the order concerns postconviction relief from a capital conviction
    for which a sentence of death was imposed, this Court has jurisdiction of the
    appeal under article V, section 3(b)(1), of the Florida Constitution. For the reasons
    set forth below, we affirm the denial of postconviction relief and affirm the denial
    of DNA testing.
    FACTS
    On direct appeal, this Court summarized the relevant facts of this case as
    follows:
    When Pallis Paulk was last seen alive by an acquaintance on
    November 9, 2004, she was being forced into the trunk of a car by
    Jackson. Her body was found in a shallow grave several months later.
    The facts at trial concerning her murder came in through a series of
    witnesses by which the following factual scenario was presented.
    Around 3 a.m. on the morning of November 9th, Paulk arrived
    at a friend’s house, looking for ecstasy pills. Her friend, Curtis Vreen,
    testified that Paulk arrived in a red hatchback. He noticed that there
    was someone else in the car, but he could not see the person’s face.
    Vreen gave her half of an ecstasy pill and told her that was all he had.
    Later that day, Paulk called her sixteen-year-old cousin, Calvin
    Morris, and told Morris, “I have a lick for you, Cuz,” which meant
    that she found a person to rob. Morris met Paulk at an apartment in
    Daytona Beach, and when Morris arrived, he saw Ray Jackson
    sleeping in bed. Concerned that Jackson might wake up, Morris
    walked back to the car and waited for his cousin. Paulk arrived at the
    car, carrying a Sponge Bob bag, which contained about two ounces of
    cocaine, some marijuana, and approximately $800. She also had
    -2-
    men’s jewelry and a cell phone that did not belong to her. Together,
    they drove to pick up Morris’s girlfriend in Sanford, Florida, and
    smoked some of the marijuana. While they were driving, Paulk called
    Vreen, looking for more ecstasy.
    At some point after Paulk left Jackson’s apartment, Jackson
    woke up and realized the theft. Jackson and codefendant Wooten
    went to Latisha Allen’s apartment and asked to speak to Frederick
    Hunt, who was Vreen’s cousin. Based on Jackson’s request, Hunt
    called Vreen to see if he had heard from Paulk. Vreen responded that
    Paulk had called him and provided the phone number from which
    Paulk had called Vreen. After Hunt relayed this information to
    Jackson, Jackson left.
    Later in the day, Morris took Paulk to Vreen’s house, even
    though Morris was afraid that Jackson would be there looking for
    Paulk. Paulk went inside, telling Morris that she would be right back.
    While Morris was waiting in the car, Wooten came outside and told
    Morris that Paulk was using the restroom. Jackson and Paulk
    eventually came out of the house and walked up to Morris’s car.
    Morris saw that Jackson had a gun. Jackson asked, “Where is my
    stuff at?” Morris immediately gave Jackson his marijuana back.
    Paulk retrieved some additional items from Morris’s car and then left
    with Jackson.
    Morris noticed that Paulk looked upset, like she wanted to cry.
    According to Morris, Jackson shoved Paulk into the back of a red
    hatchback, and Jackson, Wooten, and Paulk drove away. Morris
    initially followed them, but stopped after Jackson held a gun out of
    the window. Morris immediately went to his grandmother’s house
    and told her what had happened, but did not go to the police at that
    time because he had outstanding warrants against him.
    Jackson took Paulk to Allen’s apartment. Although Hunt,
    Thomas, and Allen were not there when he first arrived, Jackson had
    keys to Allen’s apartment. Allen and Hunt returned to Allen’s
    apartment and saw a red hatchback parked in front. Jackson was
    inside, sitting by the hallway that led to the bedrooms. Jackson told
    Allen that he had been robbed and asked her to go look. Allen went
    into the bathroom where she saw a woman in her bathtub, dressed but
    with her hands tied behind her back. The woman told Allen that she
    was fine and that it was her fault. After Allen left the bathroom,
    Wooten told her not to be “dumb” like the victim or she could end up
    the same way. Allen asked if Jackson was going to kill the woman,
    -3-
    and he nodded yes. Allen left to bail her boyfriend out of jail, but
    Hunt remained.
    Although a number of people were in Allen’s apartment,
    Wooten and Jackson were the only people who entered the bathroom
    after Allen left. Jackson asked if anybody wanted to “have fun” with
    Paulk, but no one responded. Jackson obtained duct tape and, after
    putting on some gloves, went into the bathroom with the duct tape.
    Once night fell, Jackson had several people serve as lookouts.
    Jackson then retrieved Paulk and carried her over his shoulder to one
    of his cars, a blue Oldsmobile Delta 88. As they neared the car, Paulk
    pleaded with Jackson not to put her in the trunk. Despite her pleas,
    Jackson forced Paulk into the trunk. Paulk resisted, straightening her
    legs so the trunk lid would not close. Jackson punched her in the face,
    Hunt hit Paulk in the back of her legs, and they were finally able to
    close the trunk. After retrieving his keys, Jackson left. Paulk’s
    friends and family never saw her alive again.
    After Hunt helped in Paulk’s kidnapping, Hunt and Jackson
    became much closer. Hunt moved in with Jackson, selling drugs for
    Jackson, answering his phones, and running different errands for him.
    At some point, Hunt heard that a body had been found and told
    Jackson. Jackson called somebody and asked that person to go to the
    spot, but to “step lightly” and then call him back. On a different
    occasion, when Hunt had Jackson’s phone, a person from Paulk’s
    family called, accusing Jackson of doing something with Paulk.
    When Hunt informed Jackson about the call, Jackson replied that he
    was not “worried about it because they ain’t got no body, they ain’t
    got no case.” After Paulk’s family posted flyers about Paulk in an
    attempt to find her, Jackson asked Hunt to find one of the flyers and
    tried to hang it up on his wall. Before Paulk’s body was found, Hunt
    and Jackson’s relationship soured after Jackson borrowed $800 from
    Hunt to buy cocaine and never repaid the money.
    On April 17, 2005, Paulk’s body was discovered in a shallow
    grave. There were no visible signs of injury, but her body was
    severely decomposed. Using dental comparisons, a forensic dentist
    affirmatively identified the body as Pallis Paulk. The medical
    examiner opined that the cause of death was homicidal violence of
    undetermined etiology. Although he was unable to determine the
    precise method of death, he ruled out a drug overdose after reviewing
    the toxicology report. Shortly after Paulk’s body was discovered,
    -4-
    Hunt and Allen approached the police together, providing information
    regarding Paulk’s disappearance.
    At trial, in his defense, Jackson presented Captain Brian
    Skipper, an officer with the Daytona Beach Police Department, who
    testified about an alleged serial killer who murdered three women
    between December 26, 2005, and February 24, 2006. However, on
    cross-examination, the State demonstrated substantial differences
    between those crimes and the murder of Paulk.
    During codefendant Wooten’s defense, Wooten called Quentin
    Wallace, a fellow inmate who testified that while Hunt was in prison,
    Hunt talked to him about his own case and said that he had lied about
    both Wooten and Jackson and that Wooten was not even there.
    Wooten also testified, alleging that he lived in Jacksonville at the time
    of the crime and was at work on the day that the kidnapping occurred.
    He further denied owning a red hatchback at the time of the crime.
    Based on the above evidence, by special verdict forms, the jury
    found that Jackson was guilty of first-degree murder under the
    theories of premeditated murder and felony murder. The jury found
    that Wooten was guilty of only first-degree felony murder. The jury
    found that both Jackson and Wooten were guilty of kidnapping.
    Jackson, 
    25 So. 3d at 522-24
     (footnotes omitted).
    During the penalty phase, the State presented victim impact statements from
    family and friends, as well as a stipulation from Jackson that announced that
    Jackson had previously been convicted of robbery, battery on a law enforcement
    officer, and resisting arrest with violence. 
    Id. at 524-25
    . Jackson then presented a
    significant amount of mitigating evidence that this Court summarized as follows:
    Jackson called numerous witnesses who testified about the poor
    conditions in which he grew up. According to these witnesses, both
    Jackson and his younger brother, Thayer, lived with their mother, who
    abused drugs and disappeared for weeks at a time. Jackson became a
    father figure and made sure that they had enough food to eat. After
    Jackson’s younger sister died, Jackson tried to hang himself. Both of
    the boys entered the foster care system. Thayer’s aunt raised Thayer,
    -5-
    but was unable to take Jackson. Jackson went to a mental health
    facility, where he stayed for a considerable period of time. Jackson’s
    wife also testified, asserting that Jackson was a good worker, a good
    neighbor, a good provider, good to children, generous to others, and
    had two children who needed him.
    Finally, Dr. [Jeffrey] Danziger, a psychiatrist, reviewed
    Jackson’s prior mental health history records, as well as other aspects
    of the case. Dr. Danziger opined that Jackson suffers from “bipolar
    disorder type II,” a mood disorder in which a person swings from
    depressive episodes to manic episodes. Dr. Danziger thought it was
    very unusual that Jackson attempted to hang himself at the age of
    eight and was in a mental hospital at Macclenny from the age of eight
    until he was almost ten.
    
    Id. at 525
    .
    The jury recommended that Jackson be sentenced to death by a vote of nine
    to three. 
    Id.
     Codefendant Wooten, however, received a life sentence, pursuant to
    the jury’s recommendation. 
    Id. at 535
    . After holding a Spencer 1 hearing in
    Jackson’s case and after considering the jury’s recommendation, the trial court
    sentenced Jackson to death, concluding that the aggravators outweighed the
    mitigators. 
    Id. at 525
    . In making this determination, the trial court found three
    aggravators, no statutory mitigation, and twelve nonstatutory mitigating factors. 2
    1. Spencer v. State, 
    615 So. 2d 688
     (Fla. 1993).
    2. The trial court found the following aggravators: (1) Jackson was
    previously convicted of a prior violent felony; (2) the capital felony was committed
    while Jackson was engaged in the commission of a kidnapping; and (3) the capital
    felony was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any
    pretense of moral or legal justification (CCP). The trial court found the following
    as nonstatutory mitigation: (1) Jackson was severely neglected and abandoned
    during childhood and suffered extreme loss of family and self-image at an early
    -6-
    The trial court specifically analyzed the relative culpability of codefendant
    Wooten, who received a life sentence, and found that the evidence indicated that
    the codefendant was an “underling of the defendant and was operating at the
    defendant’s direction.” Id. at 525-26.
    Jackson appealed his convictions and sentence of death, raising seven
    claims. 3 This Court affirmed Jackson’s convictions for first-degree murder and
    kidnapping and his death sentence for the murder. Id. at 536.
    age (given some weight); (2) Jackson suffered from a very abusive childhood, both
    from his family and while in foster care (given little weight); (3) Jackson suffered
    from serious mental health issues (bipolar disorder) and was involuntarily
    hospitalized in mental health hospitals for several years (given great weight); (4)
    Jackson has a special bond and is good with children (given little weight); (5)
    Jackson is capable of forming loving relationships with family members and
    friends and has the support of his family (given little weight); (6) Jackson has been
    a good and supportive son, brother, father, and husband (given little weight); (7)
    Jackson has biological children and a stepchild with whom he has bonded and who
    need his support and love (given little weight); (8) Jackson has worked and
    contributed to his family and society in his various jobs (given little weight); (9)
    Jackson had a good and close relationship with his neighbors (given little weight);
    (10) Jackson was a caring child and adult and tried to help people (given little
    weight); (11) Jackson demonstrated appropriate courtroom behavior throughout the
    course of the trial (given very little weight); and (12) Jackson can receive a life
    sentence and will die in prison (given little weight). Id. at 525 n.8.
    3. On direct appeal, Jackson asserted that he was entitled to relief because:
    (1) the State engaged in improper impeachment, coupled with improper argument
    to the jury; (2) the trial court erred in allowing into evidence matters that were
    irrelevant and prejudicial; (3) the trial court erred in denying Jackson’s request for
    an instruction regarding circumstantial evidence; (4) the trial court erred in denying
    Jackson’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that evidence failed to
    show that the victim died by the criminal agency of another; (5) the trial court
    erred in denying Jackson’s requested jury instructions in the penalty phase; (6) the
    -7-
    Subsequently, Jackson filed a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction
    for first-degree murder and sentence of death, raising twenty-three claims. 4 During
    trial court imposed the death penalty upon an erroneous finding that CCP applied;
    and (7) Jackson’s sentence of death was disproportionate. Id. at 526 n.9.
    4. Specifically, Jackson’s motion for postconviction relief alleged: (1) trial
    counsel was ineffective for failing to call Curtis Lewis during the guilt phase
    because Lewis would have testified that he saw the victim after the State alleged
    that she disappeared and had been killed; (2) trial counsel was ineffective for
    failing to question prospective jurors during voir dire in order to uncover those
    prospective jurors who were unable to give meaningful consideration to mitigating
    evidence; (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object and request a
    Richardson inquiry, see Richardson v. State, 
    246 So. 2d 771
     (Fla. 1971), or to
    move for a mistrial when witness Larry Paulk materially changed his testimony as
    to the last time that he had contact with the victim; (4) trial counsel was ineffective
    for failing to conduct a deposition or interview Larry Paulk, which would have
    alerted counsel that this witness had changed his testimony; (5) trial counsel was
    ineffective during the guilt phase for failing to object and move for severance of
    Jackson’s case during Wooten’s testimony, which prejudiced Jackson because
    Wooten testified to inadmissible evidence of other wrongs Jackson committed; (6)
    trial counsel was ineffective for presenting an unreasonable serial killer theory of
    defense during the trial proceedings; (7) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
    request DNA testing or microscopic comparison of hairs found at the victim’s
    shallow grave in order to exclude Jackson as the perpetrator; (8) trial counsel was
    ineffective for failing to object to hearsay testimony by the medical examiner and
    failing to object to improper bolstering by the medical examiner as to the work
    done by C.A. Pound Laboratory and Dr. Jan Westberry; (9) trial counsel was
    ineffective for failing to object or limit the opinion testimony of the medical
    examiner that the victim’s death was a homicide; (10) trial counsel was ineffective
    for failing to consult with an expert, such as a forensic scientist, to assess the
    evidence and the crime scene investigation in Jackson’s case; (11) trial counsel
    was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate the victim’s background as to
    being an informant for the Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation (MBI) through
    publically available resources; (12) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
    impeach hearsay testimony provided by witness Fred Hunt by calling Tonya
    Jackson and failing to use the transcripts of a video-recorded interview to impeach
    the testimony of V’Shawn Miles; (13) the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland,
    -8-
    a Huff 5 hearing, the postconviction court summarily denied some of Jackson’s
    claims and granted an evidentiary hearing in order for counsel to present evidence
    on claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, and 17. After both parties presented their witnesses,
    the postconviction court denied all of the claims by written order. In addition, the
    court denied Jackson’s motion for DNA testing.
    ANALYSIS
    In this appeal, Jackson raises sixteen claims, contending that his trial counsel
    rendered ineffective assistance of counsel during the trial on numerous bases and
    
    373 U.S. 83
     (1963), and its progeny by not disclosing cell phone records to trial
    counsel belonging to Curtis Vreen’s mother, which could have impeached the
    prosecution’s time line; (14) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to
    several improper closing arguments by the State; (15) trial counsel was ineffective
    for failing to conduct an effective and coherent closing argument during the guilt
    phase; (16) the combination of cumulative errors in the guilt phase entitle Jackson
    to relief; (17) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate and
    present mitigating evidence of Jackson’s prevalent substance abuse history and
    how it affected Jackson; (18) trial counsel was ineffective for agreeing to permit
    the trial court to take judicial notice of the date of release from the Florida
    Department of Corrections for the kidnapping count to prove that Jackson was a
    prison releasee reoffender; (19) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present
    additional witnesses to support Jackson’s community ties as a nonstatutory
    mitigator; (20) the combination of cumulative errors in the penalty phase entitle
    Jackson to relief; (21) the combination of cumulative errors in the guilt and penalty
    phases entitle Jackson to relief; (22) section 945.10, Florida Statutes, which
    prohibits Jackson from knowing the identify of his execution team, is
    unconstitutional; and (23) Jackson may be incompetent at the time of his
    execution. In addition, Jackson sought postconviction DNA testing of hairs that
    were found around the gravesite.
    5. Huff v. State, 
    495 So. 2d 145
     (Fla. 1986).
    -9-
    that the postconviction court erred in denying relief. He also challenges the
    postconviction court’s denial of his motion for DNA testing. For the reasons more
    fully explained below, we reject each claim of error and deny relief. 6
    I. Denial of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims After Evidentiary
    Hearing
    Jackson first asserts that the postconviction court erred in denying his
    ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Following the United States Supreme
    Court’s decision in Strickland v. Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
     (1984), this Court has
    explained that for ineffective assistance of counsel claims to be successful, two
    requirements must be satisfied:
    First, the claimant must identify particular acts or omissions of the
    lawyer that are shown to be outside the broad range of reasonably
    competent performance under prevailing professional standards.
    Second, the clear, substantial deficiency shown must further be
    demonstrated to have so affected the fairness and reliability of the
    proceeding that confidence in the outcome is undermined. A court
    considering a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel need not make a
    specific ruling on the performance component of the test when it is
    clear that the prejudice component is not satisfied.
    6. We summarily deny Jackson’s three cumulative error claims. Because
    Jackson has failed to show that any individual errors occurred, his cumulative error
    claims fail. See McCoy v. State, 
    113 So. 3d 701
    , 723 (Fla. 2013) (“When a
    defendant fails to prevail on any individual claim of ineffectiveness, a claim of
    cumulative error cannot succeed.”). Accordingly, we deny claim 16 (involving
    alleged guilt-phase cumulative errors); claim 20 (involving alleged penalty-phase
    cumulative errors); and claim 21 (involving alleged cumulative errors occurring in
    the guilt and penalty phases). In addition, as Jackson recognizes that two of his
    claims are not ripe, we also deny claim 22 (pertaining to the constitutionality of
    section 945.10, Florida Statutes) and claim 23 (alleging that Jackson may be
    incompetent at the time of his execution).
    - 10 -
    Schoenwetter v. State, 
    46 So. 3d 535
    , 546 (Fla. 2010) (quoting Maxwell v.
    Wainwright, 
    490 So. 2d 927
    , 932 (Fla. 1986)).
    To establish deficiency under Strickland, the defendant must prove that
    counsel’s performance was unreasonable under “prevailing professional norms.”
    Morris v. State, 
    931 So. 2d 821
    , 828 (Fla. 2006) (quoting Strickland, 
    466 U.S. at 688
    ). “A fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be
    made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the
    circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from
    counsel’s perspective at the time.” Strickland, 
    466 U.S. at 689
    . The defendant
    carries the burden to “overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the
    challenged action ‘might be considered sound trial strategy.’ ” 
    Id.
     (quoting Michel
    v. Louisiana, 
    350 U.S. 91
    , 101 (1955)). “Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s
    performance must be highly deferential.” 
    Id.
    As to the prejudice prong, the appropriate test is whether “there is a
    reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the
    proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability
    sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 694.
    Both prongs of the Strickland test present mixed questions of law and fact.
    Sochor v. State, 
    883 So. 2d 766
    , 771-72 (Fla. 2004). In reviewing a trial court’s
    ruling after an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim,
    - 11 -
    “this Court defers to the factual findings of the trial court to the extent that they are
    supported by competent, substantial evidence, but reviews de novo the application
    of the law to those facts.” Mungin v. State, 
    932 So. 2d 986
    , 998 (Fla. 2006).
    We begin by addressing Jackson’s four ineffective assistance of counsel
    claims that the postconviction court denied following an evidentiary hearing.
    A. Failure to Personally Investigate the Testimony of Curtis Lewis
    Jackson first asserts that the postconviction court erred in denying his claim
    that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to personally investigate the
    statements of the victim’s brother, Curtis Lewis, and present his testimony to the
    jury. Jackson contends that this testimony would have undermined the State’s case
    by demonstrating that the victim was alive after November 9, 2004—the date that
    the State argued that Jackson had murdered her.
    At trial, the date of the victim’s disappearance was contested. Although the
    victim’s cousin, Calvin Morris, testified that he saw Jackson kidnap the victim on
    November 9, 2004, after she had stolen drugs and money from Jackson, the
    victim’s family did not report her missing until after Thanksgiving when she failed
    to attend a family gathering.
    At the evidentiary hearing, Lewis testified that he thought he must have seen
    the victim on Sunday, November 14, 2004. Trial counsel Gerald Keating testified
    that he had relied on his defense investigator, who talked to Lewis prior to the trial,
    - 12 -
    and reported that Lewis related that he last saw the victim about three days before
    his birthday, which was a date prior to November 9, 2004, when the State alleged
    she disappeared.
    The postconviction court found that trial counsel was not ineffective, noting
    that counsel had used the same defense investigator in the past and was very
    confident in him. The court further explained its reasoning as follows:
    This Court finds that it was reasonable for Mr. Keating to rely
    on a private investigator that he had great confidence in and he did not
    act deficiently in relying on what he was told by his investigator about
    Mr. Lewis.
    Also, the State had very persuasive evidence before the jury
    that the disappearance date of the victim, Ms. Paulk, was November 9,
    2004, because of the traffic stop and arrest of Mr. Thomas which was
    clearly November 9, 2004, and that being the day that the victim was
    placed in the trunk of the car and last seen alive.
    This Court finds there was strong evidence in front of the jury
    that they could reasonably accept the November 9, 2004, date and that
    even if trial counsel was deficient in Claim 1, which this Court finds
    he was not, then the prejudice prong has not been shown.
    After a full review, we hold that the record provides competent, substantial
    evidence to support the postconviction court’s factual findings underpinning the
    conclusion that trial counsel was not deficient, and the postconviction court did not
    err in its conclusions of law.
    At trial, after the exact date of the victim’s disappearance was contested,
    defense counsel elicited testimony that some of the victim’s family initially
    informed police that they had seen the victim well after November 9, 2004. The
    - 13 -
    victim’s uncle, Larry Paulk, testified at the trial, stating that he did not know the
    date when the victim disappeared because she lived a very transient life. During
    cross-examination by the defense, Larry Paulk recognized that he had initially told
    the police that he thought he had last seen the victim around November 20, but on
    redirect, he explained that he talked to the police after her remains were found six
    months after he last saw her, and he had his dates confused. Fayonna Paulk, the
    victim’s cousin, likewise testified about her difficulties in recalling exactly the last
    day she saw the victim alive. The jury was thus aware that members of the
    victim’s family were struggling to recall the exact date they last saw the victim,
    particularly since the police did not question the family regarding the date of her
    disappearance until her body was found almost six months later.
    At the postconviction evidentiary hearing, the evidence established that trial
    counsel Keating knew that various members of the victim’s family, including
    Lewis, initially reported seeing the victim alive after her disappearance on
    November 9. Further, the testimony demonstrated that Keating requested his
    defense investigator to speak to these witnesses and show them a calendar. After
    the meetings, the defense investigator wrote a memo to Keating that provided the
    investigator’s impressions as to the interviews and informed counsel that the
    witnesses were mistaken as to the dates. Keating testified at the evidentiary
    hearing that he would have called Lewis to testify at trial if he knew that Lewis
    - 14 -
    would have confirmed his initial statement that he had seen the victim after
    November 9, but that this was inconsistent with the investigator’s report.
    Thus, the record establishes that trial counsel did not fail to investigate this
    important evidence. To the contrary, defense counsel had investigated this lead,
    but based on statements that Lewis gave to the defense investigator, defense
    counsel decided not to call Lewis to testify. The fact that defense counsel’s trusted
    investigator pursued the lead, rather than counsel personally, does not establish
    deficiency, as Jackson suggests. Accordingly, because counsel pursued this
    information and relied on the report of his investigator, the postconviction court
    did not err in finding that trial counsel was not deficient.
    Moreover, Jackson has failed to demonstrate prejudice. At trial, the State
    called two of the victim’s family members, Larry Paulk and Fayonna Paulk, both
    of whom initially told police that they had seen the victim after she had been
    kidnapped on November 9, but later realized their recollections of these dates were
    incorrect. Thus, the jury was aware of the difficulties that the victim’s family
    experienced in recalling the date they last saw the victim because they were
    interviewed months after her disappearance.
    Lewis’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing likewise demonstrated that he
    too was struggling to piece together the date he last saw the victim. While he
    recalled that he saw the victim around his birthday, which was prior to the date of
    - 15 -
    the kidnapping on November 9, Lewis had to speculate as to which day he saw her,
    based on his usual work schedule and the fact that the park at which they last met
    was crowded. Further, Lewis did not dispute that he may have informed the
    defense investigator that he last saw the victim a few days after his birthday—a
    date that would have been before November 9, 2004.
    In addition, there was compelling direct evidence at the trial showing that
    the actual kidnapping occurred on November 9, 2004. Specifically, Fred Hunt
    testified that on the same day that Jackson was looking for the victim after she
    stole from him, Hunt and a friend were pulled over by the police and given a ticket,
    establishing a link that the date of the kidnapping was November 9.
    The equivocal testimony from Lewis presented at the evidentiary hearing
    does not undermine our confidence in the outcome of the guilt phase. Thus, even
    if Jackson could establish deficiency, he cannot establish prejudice. Accordingly,
    we affirm the denial of relief on this claim.
    B. Reliance on a Serial Killer Defense
    Next, Jackson argues that the postconviction court erred in denying relief as
    to his claim that defense counsel was ineffective for relying on a serial killer
    defense and failing to retain an expert in criminal profiling. Specifically, Jackson
    claims that his counsel was ineffective for calling police officer, Captain Brian
    - 16 -
    Skipper, to testify and inquiring as to whether it was possible that the victim was
    killed by a serial killer who was in the area at the time.
    After considering the evidence presented during the evidentiary hearing, the
    postconviction court denied the claim, finding that trial counsel made a reasonable,
    strategic choice in calling Captain Skipper and the benefit of presenting his
    testimony outweighed the potential danger. The court stated as follows:
    Mr. Keating had addressed during his testimony that he was
    trying to develop “grains of reasonable doubt in the jury” and this is a
    very common tactic used by criminal defense attorneys, particularly
    where there is a strong case for the State, to bring out any and all
    matters they feel might cause [s]ome reasonable doubt, either
    sufficient to get a not guilty verdict or a lesser included offense or
    even convince one juror out of twelve which can result in a hung jury.
    This Court finds that tactic to be reasonable and it was not a
    deficiency on the part of the trial counsel.
    As previously noted, as to this Claim, there was some similarity
    to the killing of the victim in this case and some of the victims of the
    serial killer. The victims of the serial killer were drug users, some
    were drug dealers, and some were either known prostitutes or thought
    to be prostitutes, and at least two of the bodies of the women were
    found in the same general area of where the victim’s body [was]
    found and it was close in time, approximately a year to a year and a
    half difference.
    ....
    Finally, as to the second part of [this claim], that failing to
    consult with experts regarding such a Claim, this Court finds that
    experts regarding crime scene reconstruction, interpretation, either it
    being at the apartment, the automobile, or the gravesite, since almost
    six months had passed from the time of the victim’s disappearance to
    when the dog walker discovered her skeletal remains when his dog
    started scratching the ground, but experts would not have been helpful
    and the fact the trial counsel did not hire any crime scene
    reconstruction or interpretation experts was not unreasonable.
    - 17 -
    We affirm this ruling because the record provides competent, substantial evidence
    to support the postconviction court’s factual findings that trial counsel was not
    deficient, and the postconviction court did not err in its conclusions of law.
    At the postconviction evidentiary hearing, Jackson presented the testimony
    of Brent Turvey, a forensic scientist and criminologist. Turvey recognized that a
    serial killer was in the area around the time that the victim was killed and that the
    serial killer would rape prostitutes who were addicted to drugs and then shoot them
    in the head. Turvey, however, disagreed with defense counsel’s decision to present
    such a defense theory to the jury because Turvey thought the victim’s murder in
    this case seemed to be different from those in the serial killer case. Turvey also
    found other problems with the police’s investigation into the victim’s death,
    including that the case did not seem to have a lead investigator at the time the
    crime scene was analyzed and that the police assumed Jackson was the killer.
    Defense counsel Keating testified at the evidentiary hearing that he chose to
    present the serial killer defense as a possible explanation for Pallis’s death because
    she shared similarities with the victims in the serial killer case and her body was
    found in a similar location as the serial killer’s victims. In deciding to call Captain
    Skipper, Keating knew that Captain Skipper would not provide solely favorable
    testimony, but called him because Captain Skipper was the only witness who could
    testify as to the serial killer evidence.
    - 18 -
    As this Court has long held, “[c]ounsel cannot be deemed ineffective merely
    because current counsel disagrees with trial counsel’s strategic decisions. . . .
    [S]trategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if
    alternative courses have been considered and rejected and counsel’s decision was
    reasonable under the norms of professional conduct.” Occhicone v. State, 
    768 So. 2d 1037
    , 1048 (Fla. 2000). Jackson bears the burden to “overcome the
    presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action ‘might be
    considered sound trial strategy.’ ” McCoy, 113 So. 3d at 707 (quoting Michel, 350
    U.S. at 101). “There is a strong presumption that trial counsel’s performance was
    not ineffective.” Id. at 707-08.
    Here, Jackson was seen by numerous witnesses kidnapping the victim after
    she stole money and drugs from him, and the victim was never seen alive after this
    time. When her body was eventually discovered, the body was so decomposed that
    it provided little evidence as to how and when she died. In light of these unique
    circumstances, defense counsel chose to present evidence that Pallis lived a very
    risky lifestyle in an area where a serial killer was murdering victims similar to
    Pallis and whose bodies were found in close proximity to Pallis’s. The serial killer
    evidence could have planted seeds of doubt in the jury’s mind. Jackson has not
    shown that his counsel was deficient in presenting an additional suspect for the
    murder. Thus, we reject this claim.
    - 19 -
    C. Failure to Find Other Suspects Who May Have Committed the Murder
    Jackson next asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to find
    online newspaper articles documenting the investigation of the Metropolitan
    Bureau of Investigation (MBI), which was a collection of police agencies that
    worked together to target organized prostitution and drug rings, including at
    Cleo’s, the club where the victim worked. During the MBI’s investigation, the
    victim was charged with one count of sale or delivery of cocaine, a charge that was
    dismissed on June 25, 2002. Other performers at Cleo’s also were investigated and
    charged with crimes. William Hinton wrote two articles published online
    concerning this investigation, in which he discussed how the victim had initially
    made allegations against the manager of Cleo’s, but later recanted. The
    investigation and charges against Cleo’s were completed by January 2003, after
    Cleo’s agreed to pay the cost of the investigation and civil penalties.
    During the postconviction proceedings, defense counsel Keating was asked
    about the failure to discover the internet articles pertaining to the MBI
    investigation and his failure to present a retaliation theory to the jury that Cleo’s
    managers may have been behind the murder in this case. After the evidentiary
    hearing concluded, the postconviction court denied this claim, finding that trial
    counsel was not deficient in failing to discover the information and that even if
    counsel had been deficient, Jackson could not establish prejudice because the
    - 20 -
    victim “did not turn up missing until November of 2004, almost two years [after
    the MBI investigation concluded]. This Court finds that it certainly would seem to
    be unreasonable for a trial counsel to try to argue that something that happened
    more than two years ago would still have resulted in [the victim’s] death because
    of that . . . activity.”
    We affirm the postconviction court’s denial of relief on this claim. While
    testimony from the postconviction evidentiary hearing clearly shows that defense
    counsel did not discover the internet articles regarding the MBI investigation,
    Jackson failed to show that his counsel was deficient based on his failure to
    uncover this information that occurred more than two years before the murder.
    The entire record in this case demonstrates that counsel performed a reasonable
    investigation. Counsel cannot be deemed deficient merely because he did not
    discover the online articles that were uncovered as part of the extensive additional
    discovery conducted during Jackson’s postconviction proceedings.
    Moreover, even if this Court found that defense counsel was deficient in
    failing to discover online articles regarding the MBI investigation, Jackson must
    demonstrate prejudice—that the error, if any, undermines confidence in the
    outcome. Here, while counsel could have presented additional evidence that a
    person from Cleo’s may have had a motive to kill the victim, there were significant
    problems with this MBI investigation theory, including: (1) the investigation
    - 21 -
    against Cleo’s had begun almost three years earlier and concluded twenty-two
    months prior to the victim’s death; (2) numerous other performers were also being
    investigated and provided statements to the investigators; (3) the victim continued
    to work at Cleo’s after the investigation ended; and (4) Cleo’s was located over
    sixty miles away from where the victim was killed. Had the jury been presented
    with this theory, based on these inherent problems, this theory would have had
    little chance of success and may have been a risky theory to present at all. The
    failure to present this theory does not undermine our confidence in the outcome.
    D. Failure to Present Drug Addiction Evidence During Penalty Phase
    In this claim, Jackson asserts that his counsel was ineffective for failing to
    focus on Jackson’s drug addictions during the penalty phase. At the evidentiary
    hearing, Jackson called witnesses who testified that Jackson smoked marijuana
    constantly, would drink brandy, and took ecstasy pills. In addition, he presented
    the testimony of Dr. Daniel Buffington, an expert in pharmacology and toxicology,
    who testified about Jackson’s exposure to drugs, including in utero, and how this
    drug use would impact his thought processes. The postconviction court denied this
    claim, finding that the failure to present Jackson’s drug history was a tactical
    decision in which counsel chose instead to place the emphasis on Jackson’s mental
    health issues and his difficult childhood.
    - 22 -
    We affirm, concluding that the postconviction court’s factual findings are
    supported by competent, substantial evidence and that the court did not err as to its
    legal conclusions. Trial counsel testified at the postconviction evidentiary hearing
    that counsel knew Jackson abused drugs and tried to convey to the jury how
    troubled Jackson’s life was from the beginning, including that his mother had used
    PCP when she was pregnant; that Jackson grew up with a mother who was heavily
    addicted to drugs; that Jackson tried to commit suicide at age eight; that he lived
    for two years at a psychiatric hospital; that when Jackson stayed with his mother,
    he was beaten until the State finally removed him; and that he later lived in group
    homes. While defense counsel presented evidence regarding his mother’s in utero
    drug usage to the jury, counsel did not present Jackson’s personal drug usage
    because Jackson denied using heavy drugs and counsel did not believe that
    evidence concerning the use of marijuana would be an effective mitigator in the
    eyes of the jury.
    We conclude that defense counsel made a reasonable, strategic decision to
    not argue that Jackson’s addiction to marijuana was a reason not to impose the
    death penalty. “Counsel cannot be deemed ineffective merely because current
    counsel disagrees with trial counsel’s strategic decisions.” Occhicone, 
    768 So. 2d at 1048
    . The record shows that this was a strategic decision and that alternative
    courses for the penalty phase were considered and rejected. Moreover, “strategic
    - 23 -
    decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if alternative courses
    have been considered and rejected and counsel’s decision was reasonable under the
    norms of professional conduct.” 
    Id.
     Based on this record, Jackson has failed to
    overcome the “strong presumption that trial counsel’s performance was not
    ineffective.” McCoy, 113 So. 3d at 707-08.
    Thus, he is not entitled to relief on this claim. We next turn to seven
    ineffective assistance of counsel claims that the postconviction court summarily
    denied without an evidentiary hearing.
    II. Summary Denial of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims
    The postconviction court also summarily denied several of Jackson’s
    ineffective assistance of counsel claims, finding that no evidentiary hearing was
    required as to those claims. As this Court has held, a defendant is “normally
    entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction motion ‘unless (1) the
    motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the movant is entitled
    to no relief, or (2) the motion or particular claim is legally insufficient.’ ”
    Valentine v. State, 
    98 So. 3d 44
    , 54 (Fla. 2012) (quoting Franqui v. State, 
    59 So. 3d 82
    , 95 (Fla. 2011)). However, conclusory allegations are not sufficient—the
    defendant bears the burden of “establishing ‘a prima facie case based on a legally
    valid claim.’ ” 
    Id.
     (quoting Franqui, 
    59 So. 3d at 96
    ). “[T]o the extent there is any
    question as to whether a rule 3.851 movant has made a facially sufficient claim
    - 24 -
    requiring a factual determination, the Court will presume that an evidentiary
    hearing is required.” Walker v. State, 
    88 So. 3d 128
    , 135 (Fla. 2012). We now
    address each of these summarily denied claims.
    A. Failure to Object to Several Prosecutorial Closing Arguments
    In this claim, Jackson asserts that the postconviction court erred in
    summarily denying his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
    object to numerous prosecutorial closing arguments. Jackson first contends that
    his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to closing arguments in which the
    State recalled the evidence that the victim did not initially seem to object or ask for
    help during the kidnapping, but later fought against being shoved into the truck of
    the car. In a similar vein, Jackson challenges defense counsel’s failure to object to
    closing comments about the victim’s four-year-old daughter, alleging that this
    statement served only to evoke sympathy toward the victim.
    This Court has held that the State is entitled to make comments recounting a
    victim’s last hours alive if the comments are supported by the evidence, but the
    State cannot create an imaginary first-person script depicting the victim’s suffering
    or death or invite jurors to place themselves in the position of the victim. See
    Rogers v. State, 
    957 So. 2d 538
    , 549 (Fla. 2007) (holding that the State’s
    comments were proper when the State described the pain that the victim must have
    felt when she was stabbed and pointed out that she was alive and conscious for an
    - 25 -
    additional ten to twenty minutes and had the opportunity to reflect on her life and
    the opportunities she would no longer be able to act upon or that she would never
    see her children again because the comments were based upon facts in evidence
    and were not golden rule arguments).
    We affirm the postconviction court’s denial of relief as to this portion of the
    closing arguments claim. When the closing arguments are viewed in context, the
    State was addressing the mental process experienced by the victim when she
    initially did not attempt to escape or plead for her life at the point that she was
    bound in the bathtub, but realized her impending death when she was carried from
    the apartment and shoved into the trunk of a car. Witnesses testified how at that
    point, she began to struggle and fight for her life, pleading with Jackson not to put
    her in the trunk and apologizing to him. These arguments were not improper
    because they were based upon facts in evidence. In the context of this case, the
    State was simply discussing how the evidence showed that the victim realized her
    impending death as she was being forced into the trunk.
    In addition, Jackson contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
    object to improper vouching from the State when it argued that some of the
    witnesses had the courage to testify in court and reminded the jury about the
    testimony concerning threats against some of the witnesses. This Court has held
    that “improper vouching or bolstering occurs when the State ‘places the prestige of
    - 26 -
    the government behind the witness or indicates that information not presented to
    the jury supports the witness’s testimony.’ ” Wade v. State, 
    41 So. 3d 857
    , 869
    (Fla. 2010) (emphasis added) (quoting Williamson v. State, 
    994 So. 2d 1000
    , 1013
    (Fla. 2008)).
    Here, the State was addressing the decisions of the witnesses to testify in
    light of the fact that some of the witnesses had been threatened. Testimony at trial
    supported that Jackson had threatened Hunt before he went to the police, which
    motivated Hunt to seek help from the police, and codefendant Wooten made
    threats in the courtroom during the trial itself. The comments at issue pertained to
    threats that were facts in evidence before the jury. The State addressed the threats
    when discussing the witnesses’ delay in approaching the police months after the
    crime, but did not state that the threats were believable—reminding the jury to
    consider the testimony before them when weighing the credibility of the witnesses.
    This Court has previously denied a similar claim where a defendant asserted
    that the State impermissibly vouched for a witness’s credibility by reminding the
    jury that, although the witness had provided a different version of his story, the
    witness had been threatened and was afraid for his own safety. See Williamson,
    
    994 So. 2d at 1012-13
    . When viewed in context, these comments were not
    improper vouching; the State was discussing evidence before the jury and asking
    - 27 -
    the jury to consider the evidence before it when weighing the credibility of the
    witnesses.
    Next, Jackson contends that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object
    to the State’s rebuttal closing comments after defense counsel attacked the
    credibility of the State’s witnesses. Specifically, the State in its rebuttal implicitly
    rebuked the defense’s closing arguments, stating that challenges to the State’s
    witnesses were “easy pickings” and agreeing with defense counsel that its own
    witnesses had significant credibility issues based on the fact that most of the
    witnesses were involved in illegal activities. We reject this claim because we
    conclude that these comments were made in rebuttal to Jackson’s closing
    arguments and were a fair response to defense counsel’s attack on the credibility of
    the State’s witnesses.
    Finally, Jackson contends that his counsel was ineffective for failing to
    object to the State’s argument that the serial killer defense was “grasping [at]
    straws,” asserting that the State denigrated the role of defense counsel and the
    theory of the defense. As the Fifth District Court of Appeal has held, “[a]
    prosecutor may not ridicule a defendant or his theory of defense.” Servis v. State,
    
    855 So. 2d 1190
    , 1194 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). In Servis, the Fifth District
    concluded that it was improper for the prosecutor to make comments that defense
    counsel was “doing all they can to throw whatever they can against the wall and
    - 28 -
    see what sticks.” 
    Id. at 1193
    . We caution the prosecution against making
    comments that ridicule a defendant for presenting a defense. However, in looking
    to all of the arguments in this case, the State’s comment was relatively minor and
    brief. The failure to object to such a comment did not “so affect the fairness and
    reliability of the proceeding that confidence in the outcome is undermined.”
    Braddy v. State, 
    111 So. 3d 810
    , 850 (Fla. 2012) (quoting Davis v. State, 
    928 So. 2d 1089
    , 1122 (Fla. 2005)), cert. denied, 
    134 S. Ct. 275
     (2013).
    Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, Jackson is not entitled to
    relief on this claim.
    B. Failure to Conduct an Effective, Competent Closing Argument
    Jackson next asserts that the postconviction court erred in summarily
    denying relief pertaining to his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
    conduct an effective, competent closing argument. The postconviction court
    denied this claim, succinctly stating that “[t]he trial record stands on its own in
    reference to that. This Court finds that the closing arguments by the defense
    counsel [were] logical, coherent, and trial counsel was not deficient in its closing
    arguments.”
    We agree. Defense counsel’s closing arguments were by no means cursory.
    Based on the evidence presented by numerous witnesses that Jackson had
    kidnapped the victim after she stole from him, trial counsel argued that Jackson
    - 29 -
    had simply intended to scare the victim and had released her. Defense counsel’s
    closing arguments focused on whether the State left too many questions
    unanswered and its failure to present any evidence as to how or when the victim
    died. Defense counsel stressed that the victim lived a very risky lifestyle, that
    numerous people could have caused her death, and that most of the witnesses who
    testified for the State were co-conspirators to the kidnapping, who were attempting
    to curry favor with the State. In fact, defense counsel discussed each witness
    individually, identified the holes in each witness’s testimony and the
    inconsistencies with their prior statements, and elaborated on their motives in
    testifying. Accordingly, we hold that the postconviction court did not err in
    concluding that defense counsel was not deficient in the presentation of closing
    arguments.
    C. Failure to Effectively Question the Jury Venire
    As his next claim, Jackson contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for
    failing to “effectively” question the jury venire about how they would weigh
    nonstatutory mitigators. The postconviction court summarily denied this claim.
    We affirm. In order to be entitled to relief, Jackson must identify “particular
    acts or omissions of the lawyer that are shown to be outside the broad range of
    reasonably competent performance under prevailing professional standards.”
    Schoenwetter, 
    46 So. 3d at 546
     (quoting Maxwell, 
    490 So. 2d at 932
    ). Defense
    - 30 -
    counsel questioned the prospective jurors extensively about their opinions on the
    death penalty, their ability to follow the law, their ability to consider mitigators in
    general, and their opinions on mercy. The record shows that trial counsel focused
    extensively on obtaining a jury that could consider and weigh mitigation in
    determining the appropriate penalty. Jackson has not identified any particular
    omissions of defense counsel outside the broad range of reasonably competent
    performance simply because counsel did not ask additional, more specific
    questions pertaining to each of the unlimited number of mitigators that counsel
    could seek to present. Thus, we deny this claim.
    D. Failure to Move for a Severance When Codefendant
    Wooten Testified About Evidence of Other Crimes
    In this claim, Jackson argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing
    to object and move for a severance at the point in Jackson’s case when codefendant
    Wooten testified in his own defense, but discussed evidence of other crimes
    pertaining to the retrieval of guns after one of Jackson’s family members had been
    previously killed. In addition, Jackson asserts that counsel should have argued for
    a motion to sever based on a controlled call between Fred Hunt and codefendant
    Wooten, which would not have been introduced at all if the cases were severed.
    The record shows that trial counsel objected to the initial motion to
    consolidate Wooten’s and Jackson’s trials. Further, trial counsel later
    unsuccessfully moved to sever the defendants’ trials. While Jackson recognizes
    - 31 -
    this, he contends that his counsel was ineffective in any event because he did not
    move for a severance at an additional point in time.
    During the trial itself, the State called Hunt, who went with friends to the
    police station months after the crime to report what they knew. Hunt was
    subsequently arrested for kidnapping, and while in custody, agreed to call
    codefendant Wooten to talk about the kidnapping and murder while the police
    recorded the conversation. At trial, Hunt testified as to the contents of his recorded
    conversation with Wooten, in which Wooten made certain incriminating
    statements.
    After the State rested, Wooten chose to testify in his own defense and
    attempted to explain this conversation. According to Wooten, the day before the
    recorded phone call, Hunt called Wooten and they had a conversation regarding
    Jackson’s cousin being killed and Jackson’s desire to find out who killed his
    cousin. A friend of theirs retrieved some guns and placed them in a car. Wooten
    told Jackson to let the matter go, and Jackson agreed. According to Wooten’s trial
    testimony, when he talked to Hunt on the day of the recorded phone call, Wooten
    asserted that he thought Hunt was talking about that incident and his statements on
    the phone had nothing to do with the victim’s disappearance.
    Jackson’s trial counsel did not object to Wooten’s testimony concerning a
    friend of Jackson’s retrieving the guns. However, very shortly after this testimony
    - 32 -
    was presented, Jackson’s trial counsel again moved for a severance, which the trial
    court denied.
    We conclude that counsel was not deficient for failing to move for a
    severance at the time codefendant Wooten testified about the guns. Wooten did
    not testify that Jackson directed the guns be placed in any car, but actually asserted
    that Jackson agreed to leave the matter concerning his cousin alone. In addition,
    the record shows that trial counsel repeatedly filed motions for severance. Counsel
    is not deficient simply because the motions were denied. Accordingly, we affirm
    the postconviction court’s denial of relief on this claim.
    E. Failure to Seek Testing for Hairs Found at the Crime Scene
    Jackson also contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek
    DNA testing or microscopic comparison of hairs found at the crime scene, which
    could have excluded Jackson or could have potentially incriminated another
    individual. The postconviction court summarily denied this claim.
    To be entitled to relief, Jackson must identify “particular acts or omissions
    of the lawyer that are shown to be outside the broad range of reasonably competent
    performance under prevailing professional standards.” Schoenwetter, 
    46 So. 3d at 546
     (quoting Maxwell, 
    490 So. 2d at 932
    ). Again, this alleged failure does not
    meet this standard. Identifying the donor of hairs found at an outdoor crime scene
    over six months after the death would not have established that the hairs
    - 33 -
    definitively belonged to the murderer. Anyone could have visited the location
    where the victim was found. Moreover, testing the DNA of the hairs may have
    resulted in determining that they belonged to a person who was investigating the
    crime scene. However, the presence of the unidentified hairs provided an
    opportunity for counsel to plant seeds of reasonable doubt that the hairs may have
    belonged to another person who had committed the murder. Thus, the
    postconviction court did not err in summarily denying this claim.
    F. Failure to Impeach Hearsay Testimony by Hunt Pertaining to Threats
    Jackson next contends that his trial counsel was ineffective during the guilt
    phase because counsel failed to impeach two witnesses: (1) Fred Hunt regarding
    Hunt’s testimony that he was told Jackson threatened to kill him; and (2) V’Shawn
    Miles regarding the defendant’s lack of knowledge of the murder.
    Specifically, in his motion for postconviction relief, Jackson alleged that
    trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach Hunt’s testimony that Tonya
    Jackson told Hunt that Jackson had threatened to kill Hunt. Jackson contended that
    trial counsel should have called Tonya Jackson in rebuttal “to refute that she ever
    told Mr. Hunt that Mr. Jackson threatened to kill him.” At the Huff hearing,
    Jackson again reiterated that he requested an evidentiary hearing on this claim,
    stating that he could present testimony from Tonya Jackson that she never told
    Hunt that Jackson had threatened to kill him. This evidence was relevant because
    - 34 -
    Hunt claimed he was afraid of Jackson and approached the police regarding the
    crime only after Tonya Jackson informed him that Jackson threatened to kill him.
    The postconviction court summarily denied this claim because Jackson “failed to
    make an argument and showing what those persons would say and how it would
    have been effective.”
    We conclude that the postconviction court erred in summarily denying this
    claim. Here, Jackson made specific allegations that his counsel was ineffective for
    failing to call Tonya Jackson to rebut a statement that Hunt asserted she made.
    Further, in both the postconviction motion and at the Huff hearing, Jackson
    asserted that Tonya Jackson would refute that she made that statement to Hunt.
    Thus, since Jackson sought to introduce Tonya Jackson’s testimony that she never
    stated to Hunt that Jackson threatened to kill Hunt, the postconviction court erred
    in failing to grant an evidentiary hearing on this claim. Moreover, Tonya Jackson
    was present at the evidentiary hearing and was questioned as to her ex-husband’s
    drug usage. Questioning her as to whether she made a statement to Hunt would
    not have required much additional time during the hearing and would have put this
    issue to rest.
    However, even taking all of Jackson’s factual allegations relating to this
    claim as true, we conclude that he is not entitled to relief. After the victim stole
    Jackson’s money and drugs, Jackson called numerous people looking for the
    - 35 -
    victim. A significant number of witnesses testified that they saw Jackson kidnap
    the victim at gunpoint or that they saw the victim bound in a bathtub with Jackson
    guarding her. Jackson showed Latisha Allen a woman bound in a bathtub and told
    Allen that he had been robbed. When Allen asked if Jackson would kill her, he
    nodded. Numerous witnesses testified that once night fell, Jackson posted lookouts
    and then carried the victim to a car, shoved her in a trunk, and when she fought
    against being placed into the trunk, she was punched in the face until they could
    close the lid. After the victim disappeared, Jackson made several incriminating
    remarks, including telling multiple people that without a body, the State did not
    have a case. In addition, when one of Jackson’s friends told Jackson that a body
    had been found, Jackson called another person on the phone and asked that person
    to go to the “spizzot” but “step lightly” and then call him back. The challenged
    testimony at issue—whether Tonya Jackson told Hunt that Jackson threatened to
    kill Hunt—was relevant only to rebut the defense’s suggestion that Hunt had
    another motive to testify. However, Hunt’s story was supported by Latisha Allen,
    who testified as to most of the same events.
    Accordingly, although the postconviction court erred in not granting an
    evidentiary hearing, accepting all of the factual allegations as true, our confidence
    in the outcome is not undermined. Thus, we deny relief as to this portion of the
    claim. Nevertheless, we take this opportunity to remind trial courts of the critical
    - 36 -
    importance of evidentiary hearings in death penalty cases on issues that require
    factual development.
    The second portion of this claim involves whether counsel was ineffective
    for failing to impeach V’Shawn Miles with a transcript of her initial police
    interview. Specifically, Miles testified at trial that she knew Jackson and asked
    him directly whether he had killed the victim. He responded, “No body, no case.”
    She then asked whether the victim had robbed him, to which he responded that
    people “shouldn’t fuck with people[’s] things.” On cross-examination, defense
    counsel attempted to impeach Miles by asking her whether, when she initially
    talked to the police, she had “also said that [Jackson] said ‘I don’t know what
    happened to her.’ ” Miles denied it, stating, “I don’t recall saying that.” Defense
    counsel did not impeach Miles by using the transcripts from her police interview.
    We affirm the summary denial of relief as to this portion of the claim.
    Whether Miles initially said that Jackson also made this statement does not impact
    the “no body, no case” statements to which she testified at trial. Miles’s testimony
    about this conversation shows that Jackson was not actually admitting to anything,
    but some of his comments were not denying his involvement. In fact, other
    witnesses also testified that Jackson made similar statements to them.
    Accordingly, Jackson is not entitled to relief on either of the portions of this
    claim.
    - 37 -
    G. Failure to Make the State Meet Its Burden to Prove PRR Status
    In his final ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Jackson argues that the
    postconviction court erred in summarily denying his claim that trial counsel was
    ineffective when counsel permitted the court to take judicial notice of certified and
    signed copies of documents that recognized Jackson’s date of release from the
    Florida Department of Corrections, which was used to establish that Jackson
    qualified as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR).
    Even in his challenge to the postconviction court’s summary denial of this
    claim, Jackson fails to assert why his counsel was deficient or allege how he could
    have been prejudiced by the fact that Jackson’s PRR status was established through
    taking judicial notice of the documents, instead of presenting witnesses to establish
    this same fact. He does not contend that the State would have been unable to prove
    PRR status without the court taking judicial notice of the documents. Thus, we
    deny relief on this claim.
    III. Denial of DNA Testing
    In his last claim on appeal, Jackson asserts that the postconviction court
    erred in denying his motion for postconviction DNA testing. Specifically, while a
    defendant has the right to request DNA testing, in order to be entitled to testing, the
    petition must include the following:
    (1) a statement of the facts relied upon in support of the
    motion, including a description of the physical evidence containing
    - 38 -
    DNA to be tested and, if known, the present location or last known
    location of the evidence and how it originally was obtained;
    (2) a statement that the evidence was not previously tested for
    DNA, or a statement that the results of previous DNA testing were
    inconclusive and that subsequent scientific developments in DNA
    testing techniques likely would produce a definitive result establishing
    that the movant is not the person who committed the crime;
    (3) a statement that the movant is innocent and how the DNA
    testing requested by the motion will exonerate the movant of the
    crime for which the movant was sentenced, or a statement how the
    DNA testing will mitigate the sentence received by the movant for
    that crime;
    (4) a statement that identification of the movant is a genuinely
    disputed issue in the case and why it is an issue or an explanation of
    how the DNA evidence would either exonerate the defendant or
    mitigate the sentence that the movant received;
    (5) a statement of any other facts relevant to the motion; and
    (6) a certificate that a copy of the motion has been served on
    the prosecuting authority.
    Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853(b). This Court has explained that “[i]t is the defendant’s
    burden to explain, with reference to specific facts about the crime and the items
    requested to be tested, how the DNA testing will exonerate the defendant of the
    crime or will mitigate the defendant’s sentence.” Lott v. State, 
    931 So. 2d 807
    ,
    820 (Fla. 2006) (quoting Robinson v. State, 
    865 So. 2d 1259
    , 1265 (Fla. 2004)).
    The postconviction court denied the motion for DNA testing of hairs from
    the crime scene, holding that Jackson had not met his burden because he failed to
    show that “there may be DNA which would exonerate him or mitigat[e] his
    sentence.” The postconviction court explained that the hair issues were a very
    minor aspect of the State’s case because they were found at the gravesite, an
    - 39 -
    outdoor public area, six months after the victim went missing. Moreover,
    numerous law enforcement officers were in the vicinity, as were the medical
    examiner’s personnel. Thus, the court concluded that the hairs could have come
    from many sources. In addition, the court reviewed how the facts in Jackson’s
    case were affected by his allegations pertaining to the hairs, noting that in this case,
    Jackson was seen kidnapping the victim, indicating that he was going to kill the
    victim before she disappeared, and then uttering statements after the body was
    found in which he did not deny that he killed the victim.
    We affirm the postconviction court’s denial of Jackson’s motion for DNA
    testing, as we have previously affirmed the denial of relief in similar situations.
    For example, in Lott, this Court affirmed the denial of relief where a defendant
    sought DNA testing of hairs found in the victim’s shower drain and on a bed
    pillow because the defendant failed to present any reason to suspect that the hairs
    were connected to the murder, and not simply hairs left behind by normal guests,
    and he did not show “a reasonable probability that [he] would have been acquitted
    or would have received a lesser sentence” if they had been tested. Lott, 931 So. 2d
    at 821 (quoting Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853(c)(5)(C)). Thus, this Court concluded that
    Lott was engaging in a fishing expedition based on pure conjecture. See also
    Overton v. State, 
    976 So. 2d 536
    , 568 (Fla. 2007) (affirming the denial of a request
    for DNA testing of hairs because “evidence that the hairs came from someone
    - 40 -
    other than Overton or the victims would fail to prove or disprove any theory in this
    case because it is impossible to establish when or how the hairs may have become
    attached to the tape” and thus the hairs did not necessarily belong to the person
    who committed the murder). For similar reasons, we affirm the postconviction
    court’s denial of this claim.
    CONCLUSION
    For the reasons addressed above, we affirm the postconviction court’s denial
    of relief.
    It is so ordered.
    POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA,
    and PERRY, JJ., concur.
    NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
    IF FILED, DETERMINED.
    An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Volusia County,
    R. Michael Hutcheson, Judge - Case No. 2005-32590 CFAES
    Raheela Ahmed and Maria Christine Perinetti, Assistant Capital Collateral
    Regional Counsels, Middle Region, Tampa, Florida,
    for Appellant
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Lisa-Marie Lerner,
    Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, Florida,
    for Appellee
    - 41 -