appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Steven B.
Charles Fletcher, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
Moody, Attorney General, and Daniel Krumbholz, Assistant
Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
William Roderick, seeks review of an order denying a
postconviction motion brought pursuant to Florida Rule of
Criminal Procedure 3.850. For the reasons discussed below, we
Appellant was charged with two counts of sexual battery upon
a child by a person in familial or custodial authority, one
count of providing alcoholic beverages to a person under age
21, and one count of resisting
arrest without violence. Appellant and the victim are father
and daughter. On the night of the incident, Appellant, his
mother, and the victim checked into a hotel and reserved two
rooms. Appellant and the victim remained in one room while
his mother stayed in another. The victim testified that while
in the hotel room, Appellant, offered her sips of alcohol and
tickled her, sitting on top of her. The victim asked him to
stop but Appellant removed the victims pants and underwear
and took off his underwear. Appellant performed oral sex and
sexually penetrated the victim. She eventually managed to run
out of the room and into the hotel office for assistance. The
hotel clerk testified at trial that he saw a young girl who
appeared to be terrified, running and yelling for help. He
assisted her and called 911. While in police custody,
Appellant could not recall if he had raped his daughter as he
had seven drinks that night and did not know how much alcohol
the victim drank.
trial, the Child Protection Team (CPT) officer who examined
the victim opined that there was sexual assault or abuse
based on the patient history but the physical findings
neither confirmed nor negated allegations of sexual abuse.
She further testified that an examination could not
conclusively determine whether a sexual assault took place.
There was no foreign DNA recovered from the sexual assault
kit. The defense theory was that the lack of DNA evidence
showed that the victim fabricated the sexual battery so she
could move out-of-state with her mother, the non-custodial
the Appellant was convicted of his charged offenses. He was
sentenced to a total of 25 years in prison to be followed by
five years of sexual offender probation. His convictions and
sentences were affirmed on appeal. Roderick v.
State, 120 So.3d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Appellant
filed the instant amended rule 3.850 motion, raising seven
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, which the lower
court summarily denied.
appeal, Appellant only challenges the denial of his first,
fifth, sixth, and seventh claims. While the Appellants brief
refers to and contains an amalgamation of the factual
allegations made in claims two, three, and four, he does not
argue the claims therein. Thus, only the first, fifth, sixth,
and seventh claims of the motion are subject to review.
See Watson v. State, 975 So.2d 572, 573
(Fla. 1st DCA 2008). A claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel is governed by Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 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 defendants case was prejudiced by
these acts or omissions such that the outcome of the case
would have been different. See Id. at
690-92, 104 S.Ct. 2052. "A reasonable probability is a
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the
outcome." Id. The defendant must demonstrate a
likelihood of a different result which is substantial and not
just conceivable. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S.
86, 112, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). The prejudice
in counsels deficient performance is assessed based on its
effect on the results at trial, not its effect on appeal.
Strobridge v. State, 1 So.3d 1240, 1241 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2009) (citing Carratelli v. State, 961 So.2d
312, 323 (Fla. 2007)).
Appellants first claim, he argued that counsel failed to
object to the states expert witness vouching for the
credibility of the victim. The testimony at issue involved
the expert opinion of the CPT officer who examined the
victim. She testified ...