Defendant claims ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct.
Claim of ineffectiveness based on failure to explore mitigating factors regarding defendant s mental state is without merit. The jury found three mitigating circumstances based on evidence presented. As to prosecutorial misconduct, court finds no error. Prosecution s general discussion of theories of penology in penalty phase argument is proper and does not form a basis for post-conviction relief. Similarly, misstating the evidence in a technical sense does not entitle defendant to a new trial.