Opinion ID: 1751322
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Investigating and Presenting Mitigation Evidence for the Penalty Phase

Text: Branch argues that trial counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase because of counsel's failure to investigate and present mitigation evidence. In a written order, the trial court denied this claim by concluding that no credible evidence of substantial mitigation value, other than evidence that was presented at the original penalty phase, was presented at the postconviction evidentiary hearing: The final claim discussed at the evidentiary hearing involved the assertion that counsel was ineffective for failing to present mitigation evidence. However, the defendant failed to show that he suffered positive, specific, and factual prejudice regarding this claim because no evidence of improperly excluded mitigation was presented at the hearing. In its post-hearing memorandum, the defendant claims that his expert found three statutory mitigators: 1. Extreme Emotional Distress mitigatorbased upon the Defendant being on the run from law enforcement both in Indiana and Bay County, Florida. That was coupled with the fact that he had consumed a substantial amount of alcohol that evening; 2. Unable to Conform Actions to the Law mitigatorbased upon his opinion that the defendant suffered from some personality disorders. That was coupled with the fact that he had consumed a substantial amount of alcohol that evening and was running from the police; and 3. Substantial Domination of Another mitigator may have been presentbased upon the size difference between the defendant and the alleged other Eric. The idea that counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence that the defendant was on the run from two separate charges of sexual battery as mitigation is so absurd that the Court finds that the defendant could not have suffered any prejudice as a matter of law. Further, the jury and the Court rejected the story that the defendant had an accomplice, as illustrated in the sentencing order. The defendant's characterization that the expert's testimony proved the defendant could not conform his actions to the law is patently incorrect. In fact, the defendant's expert, Dr. Henry Dee, testified during cross-examination to the exact opposite conclusion on all three of these mitigators: Q. [by Mr. Pitre] And in this particular instance, based on what you reviewed, there's no clinical diagnosis that the defendant was under any extreme mental or emotional disturbance? A. [By Dr. Dee] That's correct. Q. No indication that the defendant was under the duress of any other person? A. That's correct. Q. Isn't it true that you found that the defendant was, in facthad the ability, the capacity, to appreciate the criminality of his conduct? A. Yes. Q. He had the ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law; isn't that also correct? A. Yes. I think it was impaired but certainly not obliterated. In light of the testimony elicited during cross-examination, the defendant has not demonstrated that a mental health expert would have provided any significant aid to the defense during mitigation. Since the defendant was not prejudiced by such an omission, the Court need not determine whether counsel's performance was deficient. In fact, some of the expert's testimony at the evidentiary hearing would have been harmful to defendant's position during the penalty phase. The Court found that the defendant had good personality traits and afforded that mitigator slight weight. Dr. Dee's opinion that the defendant has several antisocial tendencies would have nullified that mitigator while at the same time failing to establish any diagnosable psychological disorder. Dr. Dee further testified to several events regarding the defendant's life history, including incidents of abuse, abandonment and rejection. That testimony was corroborated at the hearing by Connie Branch. During the penalty phase, the Court found the nonstatutory mitigator of the defendant had an unstable childhood in its sentencing order, and afforded that mitigator some weight. Upon reviewing the testimony before it during the penalty and sentencing phases of trial the Court finds that the additional evidence of abuse, rejection or abandonment would not have had a measurable effect on the defendant's sentence. In fact, it would not have given this mitigator any more weight than it was attributed in this Court's order. Therefore, the defendant has failed to demonstrate that he suffered any prejudice regarding this claim. At the evidentiary hearing, Branch's trial counsel, Allbritton, testified concerning his defense preparation. Trial counsel testified he reviewed everything that was provided to him by former counsel, Chief Assistant Public Defender Earl Loveless, who had done extensive work on the case. He further testified that he spent well over 100 hours on Branch's defense. He spoke with Branch concerning his family background, and while he did not recall specific facts, he concluded that due to Branch's conflict with family members, some would not be helpful witnesses or did not want to testify. Further, he prepared other family members to testify and he presented their testimony to the judge and jury. He specifically denied that Branch had ever informed him that Branch was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the homicide or that he was aware of any other evidence of Branch's possible intoxication. Finally, counsel Loveless testified that during his representation he traveled to Indiana to speak with family and friends in furtherance of obtaining mitigating evidence, as well as to talk to Branch's Indiana attorney and to look at court records. Loveless also arranged for Dr. James Larson to act as a confidential mitigation consultant, and had him evaluate Branch. However, Dr. Larson's evaluation was not helpful to the defense. When Allbritton took over the defense, Loveless provided Allbritton with his complete defense file. And, according to Loveless, the two defense attorneys met at least one time to discuss the case. Again, we can find no error in the trial court's analysis, which relies in large part on the failure of Branch to demonstrate that substantial mitigation evidence existed that counsel failed to discover. While Branch argues on appeal that trial counsel did not obtain school records, medical records, or any other background records pertaining to Branch's background, he fails to confront the fact that no such records were presented at the postconviction evidentiary hearing. Having failed to demonstrate the existence or availability of important and helpful mitigation evidence overlooked by trial counsel, Branch has failed to establish trial court error on this claim. As the trial court's order makes clear, most of the evidence put forth at the postconviction hearing was cumulative to evidence that was presented earlier and considered as mitigation, was not credible, or would actually have been harmful to the defendant's case. Based upon the foregoing, we find no error in the trial court's denial of Branch's claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to prepare and present additional mitigation evidence at the penalty phase.