WILSON v. STATE (2020)

Upon consideration, we deny John J. Wilson, Jr.'s petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. See Rutherford v. Moore, 774 So. 2d 637, 643 (Fla. 2000) (observing that “ ‘[t]he criteria for proving ineffective assistance of appellate counsel parallel the Strickland standard for ineffective trial counsel.’ Wilson v. Wainwright, 474 So. 2d 1162, 1163 (Fla.1985). Thus, this Court's ability to grant habeas relief on the basis of appellate counsel's ineffectiveness is limited to those situations where the petitioner establishes first, that appellate counsel's performance was deficient because ‘the alleged omissions are of such magnitude as to constitute a serious error or substantial deficiency falling measurably outside the range of professionally acceptable performance’ and second, that the petitioner was prejudiced because appellate counsel's deficiency ‘compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence in the correctness of the result.’ Thompson [v. State], 759 So. 2d [650,] 660 [(Fla. 2000)] (quoting Groover v. Singletary, 656 So. 2d 424, 425 (Fla.1995)). If a legal issue ‘would in all probability have been found to be without merit’ had counsel raised the issue on direct appeal, the failure of appellate counsel to raise the meritless issue will not render appellate counsel's performance ineffective. Williamson v. Dugger, 651 So. 2d 84, 86 (Fla. 1994)”) (additional internal citations omitted)). See also Jones v. State, 658 So. 2d 122, 125 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (noting that an indigent defendant's act of filing a Bar complaint against court-appointed counsel does not automatically create a conflict situation requiring the appointment of new counsel).

PER CURIAM.