Opinion ID: 77561
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: 3.850 Rulings

Text: 55 Following the evidentiary hearing, the state 3.850 court denied Stewart relief on his remaining four claims. In response to Stewart's claim that Barbas failed to adequately investigate and prepare mitigating evidence, the state 3.850 court found that Barbas consulted with other experienced attorneys at his firm during trial preparation and employed experienced mitigation investigators. The state 3.850 court determined that Stewart never contradicted Mr. Scarpo's account of Stewart's happy home life after age five. Although the 3.850 court recognized that Stewart's stepsisters and aunt presented additional mitigating evidence of Mr. Scarpo's alleged abuse, it made no finding as to the performance by Barbas. Instead, the 3.850 court simply determined that Stewart failed to show a reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have been different had this mitigating evidence been presented, and it denied Stewart's ineffective assistance of counsel claims. 56 The state 3.850 court also rejected Stewart's claim that Barbas failed to prepare Dr. Afield properly as Stewart's mental health expert. The 3.850 court restated Dr. Afield's testimony that he was aware of Stewart's multiple suicide attempts, depression, antisocial behavior, and alcohol and drug abuse. The 3.850 court noted Dr. Afield's testimony at the 3.850 hearing that he knew about the abuse Stewart had suffered before age five, but Stewart never informed Dr. Afield about any abuse inflicted by Mr. Scarpo. The 3.850 court also pointed to Dr. Afield's testimony that knowledge of Mr. Scarpo's alleged abuse would not have changed his opinion or testimony at trial. Based on Dr. Afield's preparation and his emphatic jury testimony that Stewart had no control over his destiny due to years of abuse, the 3.850 court found that Dr. Afield's mental health assistance was adequate. 57 Stewart timely appealed the state court's denial of his 3.850 motion. Stewart's 3.850 appeal raised ten issues, and the Florida Supreme Court dismissed seven of these claims as procedurally barred or clearly without merit. Stewart v. State, 801 So.2d 59, 64 & n. 6 (Fla.2001). In the remaining issues, Stewart argued, inter alia, that trial counsel Barbas rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to: (1) investigate and present evidence of Mr. Scarpo's abuse; (2) obtain Stewart's jail records; and (3) adequately prepare Stewart's mental health expert, Dr. Afield. 58 The Florida Supreme Court denied Stewart's 3.850 appeal on all grounds on September 20, 2001. Id. at 71. The Court first found that Barbas's efforts to investigate mitigating circumstances were nothing short of reasonable. Id. at 66. The Court noted that Barbas hired two investigators and echoed the 3.850 court's finding that these investigators were very experienced in researching and investigating mitigation issues for capital cases. Id. at 67 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Florida Supreme Court observed that Stewart's stepsisters never mentioned any abuse by Mr. Scarpo to either Barbas or Mr. Fernandez prior to Stewart's penalty phase hearing and stated that one of the stepsisters, Arnold, had never mentioned the alleged abuse to anyone at the time of trial. Id. at 67 & n. 9. 59 Moreover, the Florida Supreme Court noted that Stewart never told Barbas or Dr. Afield about any alleged abuse by Mr. Scarpo and never contradicted Mr. Scarpo's description of Stewart's happy childhood in the Scarpo household. Id. at 67. Accordingly, the Florida Supreme Court determined that by failing to communicate to defense counsel (or the defense psychiatrist) regarding any instances of childhood abuse, Stewart may not now complain that trial counsel's failure to pursue such mitigation was unreasonable. Id. 60 The Florida Supreme Court also rejected Stewart's claim that Barbas was ineffective by failing to present evidence of Stewart's chronic substance abuse. Id. at 66 n. 7. The Court determined that both Barbas and Dr. Afield were aware of the alcohol and drug abuse, but it found Barbas's decision to focus on portraying Stewart as a victim of mistreatment instead of Stewart's substance abuse entirely reasonable. Id. The Florida Supreme Court concluded that Barbas conducted a reasonable investigation, presented appropriate penalty phase evidence, and forcefully argued for the jury to recommend sparing Stewart's life. Id. at 68. 61 In response to Stewart's claim that Barbas failed to prepare Dr. Afield adequately, the Florida Supreme Court adopted the 3.850 court's reasoning denying that claim. The Florida Supreme Court quoted the 3.850 court's conclusion that after interviewing and testing [Stewart] and reviewing all available documentation concerning Defendant's psycho-social history, [Dr. Afield] rendered adequate assistance on Defendant's behalf. Id. at 70. Furthermore, the Florida Supreme Court noted that new evidence about Mr. Scarpo's alleged abuse would not have modified Dr. Afield's testimony in the penalty phase of trial. The Court stressed that given the similarity between the evidence presented at trial (abuse of Stewart by his [biological] mother) and the evidence of abuse [by Mr. Scarpo] presented at the evidentiary hearing, the [3.850] court's finding that the new evidence of abuse would not make a difference is reasonable. Id. at 67 n. 10. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Stewart's ineffective assistance of counsel claims and his 3.850 motion on all remaining grounds. 23 Id. at 71.