Sandor Eduardo Guillen v. the State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJuly 15, 2020
Docket3D19-0435
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed July 15, 2020.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D19-0435
Lower Tribunal No. 12-9493
________________
Sandor Eduardo Guillen,
Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida,
Appellee.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ellen Sue Venzer,
Judge.
Harley Gutin (Cocoa), for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Magaly Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.
MILLER, J.
A jury found appellant, Sandor Eduardo Guillen, guilty of one count of driving
under the influence manslaughter with failure to render aid or give information. We
affirmed his judgment and sentence on direct appeal. Guillen v. State, 189 So. 3d
1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Thereafter, alleging a myriad of ineffective assistance of
counsel claims, Guillen sought to vacate his conviction. The lower tribunal
conducted an evidentiary hearing and issued a well-developed order denying relief.
The instant appeal ensued.
“Postconviction courts hold a superior vantage point with respect to questions
of fact, evidentiary weight, and observations of the demeanor and credibility of
witnesses.” Ibar v. State, 190 So. 3d 1012, 1018 (Fla. 2016) (citation omitted).
Unlike this court, “the trial judge is there and . . . see[s] and hear[s] the witnesses
presenting the conflicting testimony. The cold record on appeal does not give
appellate judges that type of perspective.” State v. Spaziano, 692 So. 2d 174, 178
(Fla. 1997). Hence, “[i]n reviewing a trial court’s ruling after an evidentiary hearing
on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim,” we defer “to the factual findings of
the trial court to the extent that they are supported by competent, substantial
evidence.” Jennings v. State, 123 So. 3d 1101, 1113 (Fla. 2013) (quoting Mungin
v. State, 932 So. 2d 986, 998 (Fla. 2006)).
Here, having carefully examined the record, we conclude the findings of the
trial court are amply supported by competent, substantial evidence. Heedful of the
2
adage strategic choices “are virtually unchallengeable,” Downs v. State, 453 So. 2d
1102, 1108 (Fla. 1984), and deferring to the credibility determinations below, the
record is devoid of any showing that the conduct of counsel fell measurably outside
the range of professionally acceptable performance, let alone that any alleged
deficiencies “had an effect on the judgment of conviction.” State v. Stirrup, 469 So.
2d 845, 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,
691, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2066, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984)). Accordingly, we discern no
error and affirm.
Affirmed.
3