Opinion ID: 1133749
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Drug and Alcohol Abuse Mitigation

Text: The majority glosses over the fact that Hannon's counsel did not investigate any of Hannon's prior drug use because [i]t had nothing to do with our defense. Hannon's counsel stated that [h]e didn't have a cocaine problem when asked if Hannon had cocaine problems before the trial, even though Hannon's counsel was aware of both Hannon's previous conviction for cocaine possession and delivery of cocaine, and of a charge of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. He did not know that Hannon began using drugs and alcohol at age eleven and had a history of using LSD on a regular basis at the age of fifteen, as well as crystal methamphetamine, hallucinogenic mushrooms, and crack cocaine, nor did he know that Hannon was paranoid when under the influence of drugs. He did not question Hannon's parents concerning Hannon's expulsion from school for smoking marijuana. He did not know that Hannon's daily alcohol consumption before the murders was half a case of beer and a fifth of bourbon, and that on the night of the murders, Hannon drank almost two cases of beer. [31] Hannon's sister testified at the evidentiary hearing that Hannon's behavior was irritated and edgy leading up to the murders. He would drink excessively and use cocaine on a daily basis without sleeping at night. He also used acid a couple of times a month. When asked about these issues, Hannon's counsel responded that [i]t didn't come up because it wasn't an issue. . . . We weren't exploring those things, even though he knew that Hannon had been arrested for owning drug paraphernalia and marijuana plants. Of course, as noted above, that was only the tip of the iceberg concerning Hannon's drug use.