Pineda v. State, 211 So. 3d 1129

Defendant Graciela Pineda was convicted of lewd or lascivious molestation of a child under 12 and lewd or lascivious conduct on a child under 16; verdict turned on the 10‑year‑old victim’s credibility.
There was no physical evidence or eyewitness; prosecution relied on victim’s statements and the lead investigator’s (Sgt. Utset) investigation.
Defense theory at trial: the victim fabricated the allegations and the police investigation was substandard. Defense attacked Utset on cross‑examination about investigative omissions and whether children lie.
On re‑direct, the prosecutor elicited testimony that Utset was trained to look for motive to lie and found none; prosecutor argued in closing that no motive to fabricate existed.
Defense did not object to Utset’s testimony or the prosecutor’s closing; defense counsel argued the victim gave an “Oscar performance” and asserted the client’s innocence.
The trial court convicted and sentenced Pineda; on appeal she argued fundamental error from bolstering and, alternatively, ineffective assistance based on trial counsel’s failure to object.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether unobjected‑to testimony and prosecutor comments improperly bolstered victim’s credibility and constitute fundamental error	State: testimony and comments were fair comments on evidence; Utset described investigation and lack of motive to lie	Pineda: Utset’s answers and prosecutor’s remarks improperly bolstered the victim and deprived her of a fair trial	No fundamental error; testimony/comments were responses to defense questioning or fair comment on evidence; any error invited by defense
Whether failure to object by trial counsel is ineffective assistance apparent on face of record	State: counsel’s choices appear strategic or invited; no facially apparent ineffectiveness	Pineda: counsel’s failure to object waived claims and shows ineffective assistance on record	Not ineffective on the face of the record; defense invited the evidence and failure to object plausibly strategic

Martinez v. State, 933 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (definition of fundamental error)
State v. Delva, 575 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1991) (fundamental‑error framework)
Brown v. State, 124 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1960) (quoted on fundamental error)
State v. Joseph, 419 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (relevance rule cited)
Torres‑Matmoros v. State, 34 So. 3d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (re‑direct clarifying, not bolstering)
Universal Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Warfel, 82 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2012) (invited‑error doctrine)
Louidor v. State, 162 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (invited error can preclude reversal)
Desire v. State, 928 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (ineffective‑assistance claims rarely cognizable on direct appeal)
Johnson v. State, 181 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (failure to object may be strategic)
Barnett v. State, 181 So. 3d 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (standard for facial ineffective‑assistance on direct appeal)
Morales v. State, 170 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (same)
Johnson v. State, 942 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (strategic‑decision principle for objections)