worked the night of the murders were no longer available for these investigators to review. Moreover, coworkers could not recall whether Overton worked that night. Multiple managers at Amoco at the time testified that they could not remember whether Overton worked the late shift that night, which covered from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. A non-manager who normally worked the morning shift testified that she could not remember whether Overton worked that night. Defense counsel “considered an alibi defense, but ... were unable to come up with specific witnesses.” Additionally, Overton has not established that this evidence would have illustrated that Overton worked that night even if these witnesses had memory or if timecards had been available. See Pardo v. State, 941 So.2d 1057, 1065 (Fla.2006) (<HOLDING>); Lott v. State, 931 So.2d 807, 815 (Fla.2006)
holding that alibi instruction was properly denied because even if defendant had presented evidence of an alibi it would not have rebutted the governments evidence concerning conspiracy because presence need not be shown to prove conspiracy holding that the claim with regard to the failure to present an alibi was insufficiently pled because the motion did not describe how the alibi witness would have supported the alibi with exculpatory evidence citing jacobs v state 880 so2d 548 fla2004 holding that there was not deficient performance with regard to the failure to investigate the alibi defense claim because the available testimony provided at best an incomplete alibi as the testimony still allowed for a two to threehour window for the defendant to commit the murder holding that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim for counsels failure to present the preindictment delay issue was without merit because there was no actual prejudice to the supposed alibi defense as the now unavailable witnesses would not have provided the defendant with an alibi for the time when the murder could have occurred holding that the failure to interview and present alibi witnesses who would have supported the defendants version of events was prejudicial