Opinion ID: 1201080
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Issue of self-defense

Text: Defendant first contends that his trial counsel was inadequate in failing to introduce the issue of self defense. Defendant ignores that his own, sworn testimony precluded his counsel from raising such a defense. The record indicates that counsel prepared a defense based on her conversations with defendant. This defense corresponds to the account of the murder given by defendant at trial. At sentencing, defense counsel told the trial court that the reason she chose the I didn't do it defense was because defendant had told her that he was not present at the murder. Defendant testified at trial that he did not do the killing, was not present at the murder, did not have any arguments with the victim, did not have a gun in his possession, and did not visit Ms. Arndt's apartment. At sentencing, he stated: MR. SANTANNA: Your Honor, honestly, I must tell you that I am  I do not feel satisfied, not necessarily because I've been convicted. I don't feel satisfied because for the first reason that I did not commit the offense. In Strickland v. Washington, supra , the Court addressed the issue of strategic decisions: The reasonableness of counsel's actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant's own statements or actions. Counsel's actions are usually based, quite properly, on informed strategic choices made by defendant and on information supplied by the defendant. In particular, what investigation decisions are reasonable depends critically on such information.... In short, inquiry into counsel's conversations with the defendant may be critical to a proper assessment of counsel investigation decisions, just as it may be critical to a proper assessment of counsel's other litigation decisions. 466 U.S. at 690-92, 104 S.Ct. at 2066-67, 80 L.Ed.2d at 695-96. A court on appeal should give great deference, therefore, to choices that are made under the explicit direction of the client. Mulligan v. Kemp, 771 F.2d 1436, 1441 (11th Cir.1985). If counsel is commanded by his client to present a certain defense, and if he does thoroughly explain the potential problems with the suggested approach, then his ultimate decision to follow the client's will may not be lightly disturbed. Id. at 1442. We find no error.