ROGERS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC05-732
____________
GLEN EDWARD ROGERS,
Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
____________
No. SC05-1730
____________
GLEN EDWARD ROGERS,
Petitioner,
vs.
JAMES R. MCDONOUGH, etc.,
Respondent.
[January 18, 2007]
STORY CONTINUED FROM PART I……
We will begin our analysis by examining the propriety of the comments because, as stated in connection with the guilt-phase closing argument claim, trial counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to object to arguments that are proper. First, we address the two prosecutorial comments that were not specifically raised on direct appeal.
Rogers initially alleges that the prosecutor improperly theorized about Cribbs' perceptions at the time of the murder. The prosecutor stated the following:
We know that she knew she was going to be killed, . . . we know when she was stabbed the first time, she didn't become unconscious; she remained conscious and she could feel the pain of the knife going through her body and could feel the pain of the knife as it was twisted and pulled out of her body, and then he did it again.
. . . .
What weight do you give to the ten, twenty minutes where she was there in that bathroom reflecting back on her life, on the things that she hadn't done that she wished she could, the opportunities that had never been presented to her, on her children that she would never see again, on her mother who loved her so dearly . . . .
These arguments were not improper because they were based upon facts in evidence--the victim was stabbed twice, she struggled with her assailant, and she remained alive for at least a short period of time after being stabbed. See Rogers, 783 So. 2d at 994. Additionally, this is not a case in which the prosecutor made an improper â€
