Opinion ID: 1100664
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Substance Abuse Disorder

Text: First, as to Henry's claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue and present evidence of his drug addiction, the record is clear that Henry was adamant that trial counsel not rely on any evidence of intoxication or addiction in Henry's defense, in either the guilt or penalty phases. When a defendant preempts his attorney's strategy by insisting that a different defense be followed, no claim of ineffectiveness can be made. Rose v. State, 617 So.2d 291, 294 (Fla.1993) (quoting Mitchell v. Kemp, 762 F.2d 886, 889 (11th Cir.1985)). In attempting to show that trial counsel missed obvious signs that his client had a drug problem at the time of his crime, postconviction counsel produced evidence tending to show that Henry was struggling with a crack cocaine addiction in 1987. However, this does not vitiate Henry's role in firmly and consistently insisting that counsel not pursue such a strategy during trial. It seems clear that trial counsel met with stiff resistance from his client at every turn regarding any efforts to piece together a drug defense for either the guilt phase or for mitigation. Trial counsel's testimony at the evidentiary hearings illustrates that Henry was vehemently opposed to any approach that relied on his drug use. He also made repeated denials of drug use both to counsel and to all three pretrial investigating mental health experts. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that trial counsel's assistance was not ineffective in this regard. On this issue of drug use, Henry also claims ineffective assistance regarding counsel's failure to obtain forensic testing of both a beer can found at the scene of the crime and samples of Henry's nails, hair, and clothing taken at the time of his arrest. He argues that this evidence would have established that he was operating under a cocaine-induced psychosis at the time of his crimes. Trial counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing that, while he was aware of the existence of the can prior to trial, he did not connect the can to Henry's drug use and he did not learn until trial that the can had been modified for drug use. The trial court found that the requested forensic testing would not have been relevant since the testing of the clothing and the blood (forensic testing, but not DNA testing) would not account for Henry's mental state at the time of the crime. The murders occurred between 9 and 9:30 p.m. on November 1, 1987, and Henry was not arrested until 7 p.m. on November 3, 1987; Henry's blood was not extracted until 12:05 a.m. on November 4, 1987. The trial court concluded that testing of the physical evidence for the presence of drugs approximately fifty-two hours after the crime occurred would not have been probative of Henry's mental state at the time of the crime. The trial court also found that the testing of the empty beer can would not have produced relevant evidence which could have been linked to Henry because no discernible fingerprints were discovered on the can. Even if trace amounts of a drug were found on the can, the court concluded that there was no nexus demonstrated between the can and Henry. We find no error in these conclusions.