Opinion ID: 1795741
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Mental Age

Text: Third, Henyard contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Angellette Wiley to testify at the penalty phase of the trial because she would have given a clear account of incidences where Henyard's behavior proved he preferred to be around younger children. The trial court rejected this claim correctly noting that this evidence was presented to the jury. Specifically, to the extent any testimony from Angellette Wiley was helpful in showing Henyard's mental age, it was cumulative with the statements of her mother, Jacqueline Turner, and her sister, Nyoka Wiley, both of whom testified during the penalty phase of trial. [11] Moreover, the trial testimony of Dr. Jethro Toomer, the psychologist who testified for the defense in the penalty phase, that Henyard was functioning on the level of a thirteen-year-old would have indicated Henyard's mental age to the jury. In fact, the trial court specifically found that Henyard functions at the emotional level of a thirteen year old and is of low intelligence as a nonstatutory mitigating factor. See Henyard, 689 So.2d at 244. Because Wiley's evidentiary hearing testimony was cumulative with the arguably more extensive evidence and testimony that trial counsel did present at the penalty phase, we find no error in the trial court's conclusion that Henyard has not satisfied either prong of Strickland.