Opinion ID: 1890788
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Investigate and Present Evidence of Crack Addiction and Failure to Provide an Adequate Mental Health Examination

Text: Pace's first claim of ineffective assistance of penalty-phase counsel involves three subclaims: (1) counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence; (2) counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately prepare mental health experts; and (3) counsel was ineffective for failing to have Pace examined by a neuropsychologist. The postconviction court found that there was no deficient performance and therefore did not address the prejudice prong. Pace alleges that penalty-phase counsel Sam Hall was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence that Pace was addicted to crack. [A]n attorney has a strict duty to conduct a reasonable investigation of a defendant's background for possible mitigating evidence. State v. Riechmann, 777 So.2d 342, 350 (Fla.2000). This claim was rejected by the postconviction court after the evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, attorney Hall testified that at the time of Pace's trial, Hall considered himself an experienced capital attorney. Hall had fully tried one capital case and worked substantially on another prior to Pace's trial. He further testified regarding the details of the penalty-phase investigation. The postconviction court found that the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing showed that Hall's investigation consisted of the following: (1) deposing several witnesses; (2) utilizing an investigator to interview witnesses for potential mitigating evidence; (3) obtaining witness statements from the State; (4) obtaining Pace's school records; and (4) securing two mental health experts, psychologist Dr. James Larson and psychiatrist Dr. Peter Szmurlo, to examine Pace. Dr. Larson and Dr. Szmurlo provided Hall with examination reports that did not reveal any significantly mitigating information and were otherwise unfavorable to Pace. Although Dr. Szmurlo's examination report stated that Pace denied having any psychiatric problems [e]xcept for a rather heavy use of cocaine, attorney Hall testified that Pace consistently related to Hall that he was suffering from no drug-related effects at the time of the offense. Neither expert requested that Pace be evaluated by an addiction specialist nor indicated that Hall's crack use might have affected his mental health at the time of the offense. Hall interviewed several of Pace's friends and relatives regarding Pace's crack use but, as the postconviction court stated, individuals close to Pace failed to disclose any information that either augmented or sharply contradicted Pace's own self reports of crack use. Postconviction order at 13. We find no error in the postconviction court's denial of relief based upon that court's detailed evaluation of the evidence. Regarding Pace's claim that Hall was ineffective for failing to present evidence of Pace's crack use, the postconviction court concluded that given the unfavorable psychological opinions, counsel's tactical decision to humanize [Pace] and not present any evidence of his drug use was a reasonable strategy. Postconviction order at 20. The postconviction court's conclusion is supported by the testimony regarding Pace's representations to Hall and by the generally unfavorable expert opinions. The reasonableness of counsel's actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant's own statements or actions. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Thus, there is competent, substantial evidence to support the postconviction court's finding that Hall made a strategic decision to present Pace's positive attributes over evidence of his crack use. We find no legal error in the postconviction court's determination that Hall's decision was not deficient performance in light of the information that both the experts and Pace provided to Hall. Cf. Rutherford v. State, 727 So.2d 216, 223 (Fla.1998). Pace asserts that in denying this claim, the postconviction court erroneously relied upon the same assumption that Hall had relied uponthat Pace had to be under the influence of drugs at the time of the offense. However, we do not find that either Hall or the postconviction court relied upon such an assumption. Hall's testimony was that in his experience, Pace's cocaine addiction would only be considered significantly mitigating if some effect of the addiction could be linked to Pace's conduct at the time of the offense. Because Pace continued to assert that he was not affected by his crack use at the time of the offense and because Dr. Larson and Dr. Szmurlo, the experts hired by Hall, did not report that Pace's crack use affected his mental health at the time of the offense, Hall concluded that evidence of Pace's past crack use would be more prejudicial than beneficial under the circumstances of the defense. Hall concluded that the evidence of crack use would be contrary to his strategic efforts to emphasize with the jury that Pace had some good qualities and was a human being who should be saved. Our review of the postconviction order reveals that the court made a factual determination based upon the evidence presented that Hall's decision was strategic and that the postconviction court applied the correct rule of law. Pace's second claim of ineffective assistance of penalty-phase counsel asserts that Hall was ineffective for failing to adequately prepare mental health experts, effectively denying Pace an adequate mental health evaluation. Pace points to the fact that had Hall provided Dr. Szmurlo and Dr. Larson with the information that postconviction counsel provided, both experts would have found that both statutory mental mitigators were applicable. [5] Pace also asserts that Hall was ineffective for failing to explain mitigating circumstances to Dr. Szmurlo. In its detailed order, the postconviction court denied this claim and stated: [Pace] asserts that Szmurlo and Larson improperly diagnosed Pace due to the failure of counsel to provide the experts with sufficient background information. This claim is without merit for several reasons. First and foremost, trial counsel's investigation into [Pace's] drug use was reasonable based upon the representations of [Pace] and others. Second, counsel did not withhold any essential information from either expert that was within their possession. Third, neither expert believed at the time of the original evaluation that they had inadequate information to render a diagnosis nor requested additional information from counsel. Fourth, counsel did provide the experts with information that contained insight into [Pace's] background. The record reveals that counsel provided Szmurlo and Larson with police investigative reports that contained information pertaining to [Pace's] crack use, hygiene issues, emotional state, and the fact that he stayed in an abandoned house. Counsel also provided Dr. Larson with numerous pretrial statements and depositions. In addition to the background materials, each expert had an opportunity to interview [Pace] and Pace reported heavy crack use to both of them. Despite their knowledge of his crack use and aberrant behavior, both experts failed to develop the presence of organic brain damage or statutory mental mitigation during their initial evaluations. In addition, neither expert recommended that an addictions specialist examine Pace. Counsel is not deficient for relying upon the experts' opinions and deciding not to further investigate or present information on Pace's crack use or organic brain damage. Moreover, the fact that [Pace] has now secured favorable testimony of mental mitigation and brain damage from Dr. Michael Herkov and Dr. Barry Crown does not render counsel's investigation into mitigation ineffective. See Asay v. State, 769 So.2d 974, 986 (Fla. 2000); Jones v. State, 732 So.2d 313, 320 (Fla.1999); Rose v. State, 617 So.2d 291, 294 (Fla.1993). See also Davis v. Singletary, 119 F.3d 1471, 1475 (11th Cir. 1997) (stating mere fact a defendant can find, years after the fact, a mental health expert who will testify favorably for him does not demonstrate that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to produce that expert at trial.). Counsel diligently obtained two mental health professionals to examine Pace prior to trial but those experts failed to provide counsel with favorable information. As indicated above, counsel is not deficient for reasonably relying upon the opinions of Szmurlo and Larson and not seeking out additional experts. See Card v. Dugger, 911 F.2d 1494, 1513 (11 Cir. 1990) (stating counsel is not required to shop for a psychiatrist who will testify in a particular way). Furthermore, the fact that Szmurlo and Larson have now changed their diagnosis does not render counsel's background investigation ineffective. At the evidentiary hearing, Szmurlo and Larson both testified that they currently believe that Pace was suffering from an emotional disturbance at the time of the murder and his ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was impaired. However, the information that Szmurlo and Larson attribute to this change in opinion is comprised primarily of individuals who have changed their accounts of Pace's behavior or other information that counsel had no reason to pursue due to the representations of [Pace] and others. Of the 10 recently obtained affidavits that collateral counsel submitted to the experts, trial counsel had deposed five of the affiants prior to Pace's trial. Barry Copeland, Ella Mae Green, Melanie Pace, Cynthia Pace, and Hilda Pace were each questioned regarding Pace's drug use and none of these witnesses offered information they provided in the recent affidavits. Trial counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to provide information to mental heath experts that the affiants chose not to disclose to counsel when originally questioned. As for the remaining affiants, trial counsel had no reason to pursue these individuals in light of the information they received from [Pace] and his friends and family. Collateral counsel also provided the experts with a presentence investigation report (PSI) for his strong arm robbery conviction and Pace's school records. Although this information was available to counsel prior to [Pace's] trial, counsel is not obligated to pursue every conceivable record that pertains to [Pace's] background. Trial counsel had information on the prior offense from the records he obtained from the Department of Corrections and made a tactical decision to limit information on this offense to the experts. Further, trial counsel were aware that [Pace] did not have significant disciplinary problems in school and that he graduated from high school. Thus, trial counsel is not deficient for failing to obtain records that counsel had no reason to believe contained any favorable mitigating information. In addition, collateral counsel provided Szmurlo with Section 921.141, Florida Statutes (1999), the statute governing aggravating and mitigating circumstances. [Pace] contends that counsel were ineffective for failing to provide Szmurlo, who was inexperienced in evaluations for capital cases, with more explicit instructions on mitigation. The record reveals that counsel sent Szmurlo a letter detailing the scope of the evaluation and directing him to look for mitigating circumstances. No other explanation was provided but Szmurlo testified at the evidentiary hearing that he understood that he was looking for anything of significance from a psychiatric standpoint that would have rendered [Pace's] judgment to be deficient. Although Szmurlo was not aware of the statutory definition of mitigating circumstances pursuant to section 921.141(6), Fla. Stat. (1989), the term mitigation has a common meaning and his testimony demonstrates that he understood his role. Therefore, counsel's failure to provide Szmurlo with a legal definition of mitigation did not adversely impact his evaluation. See generally Roche v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1115, 1128 (Ind.1998) (stating that the term mitigation is a term of general use that is understood by persons of ordinary intelligence). Postconviction order at 16-19 (footnotes and record citations omitted). We find that there is competent, substantial evidence to support the postconviction court's findings of fact, and we find no error in the trial court's denial of Pace's second subclaim of ineffective assistance of penalty-phase counsel. Pace's third subclaim asserts that penalty-phase counsel was ineffective for failing to have Pace examined by a neuropsychologist. This claim was properly rejected by the postconviction court as being without merit. Neither of the two experts who examined Pace indicated the possibility of brain damage after both administered neuropsychological testing, and a capital defendant does not have an independent right to be examined by a neuropsychologist.