Martin-Godinez v. State

290 So.3d 144

Reynoldo MARTIN-GODINEZ, Appellant,

v.STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4531

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 31, 2020

Reynoldo Martin-Godinez, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Winokur, J.

Reynoldo Martin-Godinez appeals the trial court's denial of postconviction relief. Because the records attached to the order denying relief do not conclusively refute Ground One of the motion, we reverse the denial of that ground.¹

Martin-Godinez was convicted of three counts of sexual battery on a child under the age of 12, one count of lewd or lascivious molestation, and one count of promoting the sexual performance of a minor. The convictions were affirmed on appeal. Martin-Godinez v. State , 225 So. 3d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

Martin-Godinez then filed a motion for postconviction relief. Among other grounds, he argued that his attorney was ineffective for failing to object to the victim's videotaped Child Protection Team (CPT) interview being provided to the jury during deliberations. The trial court summarily denied all grounds for relief.

The trial court denied Martin-Godinez's claim regarding the CPT interview videotape, concluding that the video was entered into evidence and therefore it was proper to send it back into the jury room pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.400(a)(3). We disagree. "[V]ideotaped out-of-court interviews with child victims introduced into evidence under section 90.803(23)[, Florida Statutes,] shall not be allowed into the jury room during deliberations." Young v. State , 645 So. 2d 965, 967 (Fla. 1994). Trial counsel can be deemed ineffective for failing to object to a videotaped CPT interview being sent to the jury room during deliberations where this omission results in prejudice. See McLevy v. State , 849 So. 2d 431, 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) ; see also Otero v. State , 169 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).

Nonetheless, we hold that Martin-Godinez did not demonstrate an entitlement to an evidentiary hearing on this claim, because he did not make a sufficient allegation of prejudice.² To prove ineffective assistance a defendant must allege (1) the specific acts or omissions of counsel which fell below a standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms and (2) that the defendant's case was prejudiced by these acts or omissions such that the outcome of the case would have been different. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 690-92, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The prejudice prong requires that the defendant demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. See Id. , 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. A defendant must allege sufficient facts to demonstrate "how the outcome would have been different had counsel acted otherwise" in order to merit an evidentiary hearing. Ragsdale v. State , 720 So. 2d 203, 208 (Fla. 1998). Regardless of whether counsel should have objected to the videotape being given to the jury, Martin-Godinez made an insufficient allegation of prejudice to overcome a summary denial of this claim.

Martin-Godinez did not allege that "but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Instead, he alleged that if counsel had objected, he would have received relief on direct appeal, where the harmless error standard would have resulted in reversal.³ If counsel had done so, Martin-Godinez reasons, he would not have to prove prejudice under the considerably more difficult standard under Strickland .

We reject the argument that a defendant can demonstrate prejudice under Strickland by arguing that if counsel had objected, the defendant would have secured relief on direct appeal. First, it does not allege that the result of the proceeding would have been different, as Strickland requires. More importantly, it implies that, had counsel objected, the court would have erroneously overruled the objection, thus giving the defendant a ground for appeal. This argument does not demonstrate prejudice under Strickland . See Carratelli v. State , 961 So. 2d 312, 323 (Fla. 2007) (holding that "a defendant alleging that counsel was ineffective for failing to object or preserve a claim of reversible error in jury selection must demonstrate prejudice at the trial, not on appeal."); Strobridge v. State , 1 So. 3d 1240, 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) ("The prejudice in counsel's deficient performance [in failing to preserve error for appeal] is assessed based upon its effect on the results at trial, not on its effect on appeal."). Moreover, this implication runs...