Angelo Johnson v. The State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: June 12, 2024
• Docket: 2023-1578
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed June 12, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1578 Lower Tribunal No. F16-6113C ________________

Angelo Johnson, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141 (b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lody Jean, Judge.

Daniel J. Tibbitt, P.A. and Daniel Tibbitt, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Cooper v. State, 712 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA

1998), rev. denied, 720 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1998) (“A suggestion that the

defendant suborned perjury or that a defense witness manufactured

evidence, without a foundation in the record, is completely improper.”); see

also Calloway v. State, 210 So. 3d 1160, 1182 (Fla. 2017) (“[E]xperts may

not comment on the credibility of other witnesses. This limitation is intended

to minimize any effect that the expert status of the witness may have on the

jury’s reception of the testimony.”) (internal citations omitted); White v. State,

964 So. 2d 1278, 1286 (Fla. 2007) (“A defendant cannot establish ineffective

assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to call a witness who is

unavailable.”); Jacobson v. Humana Med. Plan, Inc., 636 So. 2d 120, 121

(Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“[T]he doctrine of the ‘law of the case[]’ . . . is that those

points of law adjudicated in a former appeal are binding in order to promote

stability of judicial decisions and to avoid piecemeal litigation.”); Deparvine

v. State, 146 So. 3d 1071, 1088, 1095–96 (Fla. 2014) (finding trial counsel’s

failure to develop evidence and cross-examine witness on issue did not

“demonstrate deficient performance or prejudice” and was not ineffective

because testimony would have little substance on outcome of case).