Israel J. Wilson v. State of Florida , 271 So. 3d 1237 ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •           FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
    STATE OF FLORIDA
    _____________________________
    No. 1D18-1774
    _____________________________
    ISRAEL J. WILSON,
    Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    _____________________________
    On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
    Tatiana Salvador, Judge.
    May 16, 2019
    PER CURIAM.
    Israel Wilson (“Wilson”) appeals the denial of his motion for
    post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal
    Procedure 3.850. He claims ineffective assistance of counsel in
    failing to file a motion to suppress witness identification, to object
    to improper closing arguments, and to request a jury instruction
    that he was proceeding to trial with the aid of medication to treat
    his mental disorders. Because Wilson’s claims are meritless, we
    affirm.
    In July 2010, Wilson was convicted of burglary with an
    assault or battery, attempted robbery, robbery, and fraudulent use
    of a credit card. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms
    of life in prison for the burglary offense, ten years in prison each
    for the attempted robbery and the fraudulent credit card use
    offenses, and thirty years in prison for the robbery offense. He was
    designated a habitual felony offender and a prison releasee
    reoffender. His judgment and sentence were per curiam affirmed
    on December 8, 2011. Wilson v. State, 
    75 So. 3d 728
    (Fla. 1st DCA
    2011) (table decision).
    To succeed on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel,
    Wilson must show that his trial counsel’s performance was
    deficient and that such deficient performance prejudiced the
    defense so as to deprive him of a fair trial. See Strickland v.
    Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    , 687 (1984). To show deficiency, he must
    demonstrate that counsel’s representation fell below an objective
    standard of reasonableness based on professional norms. See
    Odegaard v. State, 
    137 So. 3d 505
    , 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). To
    satisfy the prejudice prong, Wilson must show that, but for the
    error, there was a reasonable probability the outcome would have
    been different. Jones v. State, 
    998 So. 2d 573
    , 584 (Fla. 2008).
    Regarding ground one, failure to file a motion to suppress out-
    of-court and in-court identifications, the trial court attached
    portions of the record to show that this claim was without merit.
    Counsel cannot be deemed ineffective if the motion to suppress
    would have been meritless. See Johnston v. State, 
    63 So. 3d 730
    ,
    740 (Fla. 2011).
    On ground two, failure to object to improper closing
    arguments, in order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of
    counsel claim for failing to object to comments made during closing
    arguments, Wilson must show that the comments were
    objectionable and that there was no tactical reason for failing to
    object. See Wickham v. State, 
    124 So. 3d 841
    , 860 (Fla. 2013);
    Stephens v. State, 
    975 So. 2d 405
    , 420 (Fla. 2007). He must also
    show that the comments were so prejudicial that they deprived
    him of a fair trial. 
    Stephens, 975 So. 2d at 420
    . Wilson fails to
    demonstrate any deficiency of counsel in failing to object to the
    above comments by the State. A review of the closing arguments
    shows that the comments were made in rebuttal to defense counsel
    on the same subject; therefore, they were an “invited response” and
    not improper. See Walls v. State, 
    926 So. 2d 1156
    , 1166 (Fla.
    2006).
    2
    Finally, in his third ground, failure to request a jury
    instruction to explain his use of psychotropic medication, the trial
    court properly dismissed this claim as untimely.           Wilson’s
    amended motion for post-conviction relief raising this claim was
    not filed within two years of this Court’s mandate. As he raised a
    new claim rather than simply providing additional allegations to
    his original two claims, the time requirements in Rule 3.850(b)
    applied to the amended motion. See Lanier v. State, 
    826 So. 2d 460
    , 461-62 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
    AFFIRMED.
    LEWIS, WINSOR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
    _____________________________
    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
    _____________________________
    Israel J. Wilson, pro se, Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
    3