Opinion ID: 1699092
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: ineffective assistance of counsel in penalty phase

Text: I first address why I conclude that Hodges has demonstrated deficient performance by counsel in failing to conduct an adequate background investigation and present substantial mitigating evidence. As noted above, the facts of the case reveal that Hodges' primary motive for murdering the victim, a woman he barely knew, was to eliminate the possibility that she would testify against him on a misdemeanor indecent exposure charge. Hodges' disproportionate reaction to the threat of testimony should have been explained to the jury, particularly considering that Hodges had little prior criminal history. However, defense counsel presented only two witnesses in mitigation  Hodges' mother and brother-in-law  who provided minimal testimony regarding Hodges' relationship with his family. Based on these two witnesses' testimony, the only mitigating circumstance found by the trial judge concerned Hodges' character and dedication to his family. See Hodges v. State, 595 So.2d 929, 934 (Fla.1992). [13] None of Hodges' three siblings testified during the penalty phase. This absence of meaningful mitigation stems from trial counsel's failure to investigate Hodges' school records, military records, and social and psychological history. The mental health experts retained by trial counsel to evaluate Hodges were unable to assist in mitigation primarily because defense counsel did not provide them with this critical information. Indeed, it is undisputed that trial counsel did not give the experts the names of Hodges' schools, hospitals, and treatment centers. The only information trial counsel provided to the experts in this case consisted of the Plant City Police Department records and reports, including the autopsy reports and investigative reports. Moreover, despite the fact that trial counsel knew Hodges grew up in one of the poorest and most polluted communities in the nation, counsel failed to visit the area in order to develop a meaningful understanding of Hodges' cultural and environmental influences. [14] As revealed in the postconviction proceedings, a competent background investigation would have led to compelling mitigating evidence and placed that evidence in a context giving it greater mitigating force. We have stated that the obligation to investigate and prepare for the penalty portion of a capital case cannot be overstated  this is an integral part of a capital case. State v. Lewis, 838 So.2d 1102, 1113 (Fla.2002). In Wiggins, the United States Supreme Court readdressed the standard for assessing whether counsel is ineffective for failing to present mitigation evidence in death cases. The Court stated that [the] principal concern in deciding whether [counsel] exercised reasonable professional judgmen[t], is not whether counsel should have presented a mitigation case. Rather, [the] focus [is] on whether the investigation supporting counsel's decision not to introduce mitigating evidence of Wiggins' background was itself reasonable. In assessing counsel's investigation, [the Court] must conduct an objective review of their performance, measured for reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, which includes a context-dependent consideration of the challenged conduct as seen from counsel's perspective at the time, [ Strickland ], at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052 ([E]very effort [must] be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight). 539 U.S. at 522-23, 123 S.Ct. 2527 (some citations omitted). Relying on the American Bar Association guidelines, the Court in Wiggins noted that efforts should be made to discover available mitigating evidence and evidence to rebut any aggravating evidence, from such sources as medical history, educational history, employment and training history, family and social history, prior adult and juvenile correctional experience, and religious and cultural influences. Id. at 524, 123 S.Ct. 2527. (emphasis omitted) This case is substantially similar to Wiggins. Hodges' trial counsel failed to investigate Hodges' medical or psychological history, failed to investigate Hodges' educational history, and failed to investigate Hodges' military history. Defense counsel presented no mental health testimony in mitigation of a sentence on a seemingly irrational crime committed by a person with no significant criminal history. The only means to develop a credible explanation for Hodges' actions would have been through a thorough mental health evaluation. As the Supreme Court recognized in Wiggins, any reasonably competent attorney would have realized that pursuing these leads was necessary to making an informed choice among possible defenses, particularly given the apparent absence of any aggravating factors in [the defendant's] background. Id. at 525, 123 S.Ct. 2527. Indeed, at the evidentiary hearing on this issue, Hodges' own trial counsel failed to advance any justification for a penalty-phase strategy that involved little meaningful investigation. The State's own expert conceded the inappropriateness of counsel's conduct. Even the majority acknowledges that [t]he mitigating evidence presented during the postconviction proceeding ... exceed[ed] the quality and quantity of that presented at trial. Majority op. at 346. In light of the almost nonexistent mitigation presented at trial and the lack of any credible reason for this failure, that characterization is an understatement. Pursuant to Wiggins, the decision by trial counsel at the time of Hodges' trial not to present mitigating evidence could not have been reasonable because the investigation on which this decision rested fell far below prevailing professional norms. The majority states that its denial of relief on this issue is controlled by the distinction between the after-the-fact analysis of the results of a reasonable investigation, and an investigation that is itself deficient. Majority op. at 347. Although I acknowledge that a review of counsel's actual investigation is the proper analysis to be employed when determining whether counsel was deficient, such a review cannot exist in a vacuum. The validity of a comparison between the results yielded by the initial investigation and the investigation in the postconviction phase is demonstrated by the United States Supreme Court's analysis in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). In determining that trial counsel was ineffective in that case, the Court specifically noted that had counsel sought certain records, the jury would have learned of Williams' nightmarish childhood, borderline retardation, and nonviolent nature, all of which were discovered in the postconviction investigation. See id. at 395-96, 120 S.Ct. 1495. Therefore, any meaningful analysis must necessarily include the disparity between what counsel uncovered during the original investigation and what postconviction counsel presented in the rule 3.850 motion or hearing. See id.; Rose v. State, 675 So.2d 567, 574 (Fla.1996) (In light of the substantial mitigating evidence identified at the hearing below as compared to the sparseness of the evidence actually presented, we find that counsel's errors deprived Rose of a reliable penalty phase proceeding.). In this case, postconviction counsel presented testimony of both lay and expert witnesses, who testified that (1) Hodges' upbringing was severely impoverished; [15] (2) Hodges was physically, mentally, and possibly sexually abused; (3) Hodges grew up in a hometown characterized by social disorganization and a distrust of outsiders; (4) the area where Hodges lived was a cesspool filled with hazardous waste and toxic substances that have been shown to lead to neurological deficits and behavioral and nervous system problems in children; (5) Hodges had a dull intellect and a history of closed head injuries; and (6) Hodges had made previous suicide attempts. Moreover, the psychiatrist who evaluated Hodges at the time of trial, Dr. Maher, drastically changed his opinion of Hodges' mental state during the postconviction stage. During the postconviction hearing, Dr. Maher testified that Hodges was likely under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance at the time of trial, and suffered from depression and brain damage. This evaluation of Hodges was corroborated by Dr. Craig Beaver, a forensic psychologist who also testified at the evidentiary hearing. What is critical is not that Dr. Maher's opinion changed but why it changed. Dr. Maher's changed opinion was caused, in large part, by the evaluation of records trial counsel failed to provide prior to the original penalty phase, including the academic, military, and mental health records contained in the postconviction record. Many of these records contained red flags cumulatively indicative of mental health dysfunction, including poor academic history, poor home life, speech deficit, IQ testing, and military discharge. Indeed, the military records indicate that Hodges was discharged after only fifty-five days by reason of unsuitability/defective attitude. Internal military documents describe Hodges as unable to adjust to a disciplined environment. Hodges was also described as a mentally dull recruit. Although the majority concludes that these records contain no suggestion of brain damage or mental health problems, Drs. Maher and Beaver considered the records highly relevant evidence of mental mitigation. Even the State's own expert, Dr. Merin, testified that it was inappropriate for Hodges' defense counsel to fail to present this mental health information. Hodges' claim of deficient performance is supported not only by the United States Supreme Court decisions in Wiggins and Williams, but also by this Court's precedent. This case is like Rose and Ragsdale v. State, 798 So.2d 713, 716 (Fla.2001), where we found trial counsel ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence. In Rose, we determined that trial counsel's failure to investigate Rose's background and obtain the school, hospital, prison, and other records and materials that contained ... information ... as to Rose's extensive mental problems deprived Rose of a reliable penalty phase. 675 So.2d at 572. In Ragsdale, we noted that counsel presented only one witness in mitigation, who provided minimal evidence, compared to the abundance of mitigating evidence available at the time of trial and presented during the evidentiary hearing. See 798 So.2d at 716. As in Rose and Ragsdale, Hodges' counsel in this case did not secure many critical records and did not provide the mental health expert with complete information, the result of which was a penalty phase in which only two witnesses testified to minimal mitigation. [16] The cases that the majority relies on, Asay v. State, 769 So.2d 974, 986 (Fla.2000), and Rutherford v. State, 727 So.2d 216, 221 (Fla.1998), are distinguishable. In both Asay and Rutherford, postconviction counsel presented more favorable mental health testimony than that presented at trial. We said in Asay that the first evaluation is not rendered less than competent simply because appellant has been able to provide testimony to conflict with the first evaluation. 769 So.2d at 986. However, in contrast to this case, in both Asay and Rutherford the postconviction mental health testimony was not based on substantial new information that trial counsel failed to investigate and produce. Indeed, in Asay we specifically noted that the notes attached to the [first] report indicate that [the trial expert] was aware of most of the facts now advanced by collateral counsel. Id.; see also Rutherford, 727 So.2d at 222 (noting that the trial mental health evaluators were aware of Rutherford's alcoholism and anxiety disorder and merely reached a different conclusion that was not necessarily inconsistent with the postconviction evaluation). In this case, we are not presented with a situation in which postconviction counsel has simply secured a more favorable diagnosis based on substantially the same information available at the time of trial. Rather, Hodges' trial expert has changed his opinion based on new information that trial counsel failed to provide and should have provided if he had conducted an adequate investigation. Finally, to the extent that the majority concludes that this case is like Rutherford because counsel's reasonable efforts to conduct a background investigation in the instant case were significantly hampered by the failure of the defendant... to either participate in the process or provide useful information, majority op. at 349, I find this statement to be a mischaracterization of Hodges' behavior. After the presentation of the two defense penalty-phase witnesses, counsel informed the court that Hodges was upset with him, and doesn't want us to put the second phase on. Counsel did not state that anything Hodges said or did caused him to refrain from presenting additional penalty-phase evidence or that Hodges had in any way impeded counsel's penalty-phase investigation. During the postconviction hearing, Hodges' trial counsel testified that Hodges was quiet, unassuming, cooperative, and would always answer questions appropriately. Further, the penalty-phase transcript shows that Hodges exercised his right not to testify after he consulted with counsel. The exercise of this right, which is personal to the defendant, should not be interpreted as a lack of cooperation. Furthermore, Dr. Maher specifically testified that Hodges was absolutely trying to assist in the 1989 evaluation. According to both Dr. Maher and Dr. Beaver, any perceived inadequacies in Hodges' participation were directly caused by his impairments. As Dr. Maher stated: His limited IQ, his frontal lobe impairment, his chronic depression, his personality development, that makes him an individual who is in the face of authority passive, compliant, non-complaining, not interested or inclined to air the family's dirty laundry. So, ... because of the very same problems that I have identified here, Mr. Hodges' cooperation in the interviews did not allow me to see sufficiently clearly a need for further intensive investigation. Hodges' case highlights the importance of counsel's obligation to conduct a thorough background investigation in order to ensure that mental health evaluations are accurate and that mentally impaired defendants such as Hodges are not penalized for their inability to assist themselves. [17] We have said that the failure to investigate and present available mitigating evidence is a relevant concern along with the reasons for not doing so. Rutherford, 727 So.2d at 221 (quoting Rose, 675 So.2d at 571). However, as noted by the majority, Hodges' trial counsel had very little personal recollection of the trial and the public defender's office lost portions of the trial file, including trial counsel's notes. Thus, our evaluation of whether counsel's performance was deficient is necessarily hindered by the loss of information that would explain counsel's reasons for not investigating and presenting the information revealed during the postconviction proceeding. In my view, Hodges should not be penalized by trial counsel's current inability to justify his trial tactics. The next prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is prejudice. The test is whether our confidence in the imposition of the death penalty is undermined. The substantial additional mitigation that was uncovered and produced during postconviction investigation, including the mental health mitigating testimony of Dr. Maher and Dr. Beaver, should not be undervalued in this case. Particularly compelling is the fact that had Dr. Maher had access to the information revealed during postconviction proceedings, he would have provided mental health mitigation that could have helped to establish at least one additional statutory mitigator [18] and undermined the establishment of one aggravator, CCP. Without the CCP aggravator, Hodges' death sentence would have been supported by only one aggravator  witness elimination. As Justice Barkett stated in her 1992 opinion dissenting from affirmance of the death sentence after concluding then that Hodges' death sentence was properly supported by only one aggravator: [19] Against this [single aggravator], Hodges has grown to adulthood with no significant prior criminal history. Despite the fact that there was very little mitigation presented, the trial judge found that Hodges was a contributing member of society, a good employee, and a good and caring husband and father to his four children. Hodges, 595 So.2d at 935 (Barkett, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (footnote omitted) (emphasis supplied). Furthermore, despite the fact that there was very little mitigation presented, Hodges' original death recommendation was not unanimous. I conclude that the change in the balance of aggravation and mitigation flowing from competent penalty-phase representation could well have turned four or more jurors away from a death recommendation. We now know that there was substantial mitigation never considered by either judge or jury. In light of the nature of the aggravation, the substantial additional mitigation that should have been presented, and the lack of a unanimous recommendation, Hodges has demonstrated both deficient performance and prejudice and is entitled to a new penalty phase because his counsel was ineffective pursuant to Wiggins, Williams , and Strickland.