Opinion ID: 1935286
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ineffective Assistance During the Guilt Phase

Text: To prevail on a claim that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance, a defendant must demonstrate specific acts or omissions of counsel that are so serious that counsel was not functioning as the `counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The defendant also must demonstrate prejudice by show[ing] that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims present mixed questions of law and fact subject to plenary review, and this Court independently reviews the trial court's legal conclusions, while giving deference to the trial court's factual findings. Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037, 1045 (Fla.2000). Henry contends that retrial counsel was ineffective for relying on the theories of self-defense and diminished capacity, which were not viable, and that he was prejudiced because another viable defense was available. Each aspect of this claim fails.
Henry first argues that no evidence supported the theory of self-defense used at trial. The record conclusively rebuts this argument. In his statement to police, Henry said he went to his estranged wife's house to discuss Christmas presents for her son. They argued, and she attacked him, cutting him three times with a kitchen knife. Henry then struggled with her and took the knife away. He freaked out and stabbed her thirteen times. An officer took pictures of Henry's wounds, but threw them away because they were unclear. Henry contends that self-defense was not an available defense because he stabbed his wife many times and the police presented evidence contradicting that theory, such as the officer's testimony that the scratches on Henry's arm appeared to be made by thorns, not knives. Retrial counsel testified, and the record shows, however, that during trial he elicited evidence of the victim's violent nature and that the victim attacked Henry first. Thus, self-defense was consistent with Henry's version of events, and evidence existed to support it. In fact, counsel presented enough evidence of self-defense to justify a jury instruction on it. Further, at the evidentiary hearing retrial counsel admitted that self-defense was an imperfect defense because of the repeated stabbing, but he stated that his defense strategy was twofold. See Lusk v. State, 498 So.2d 902, 905 (Fla.1986) (holding trial counsel's decision to rely on self-defense here was a strategic choice which did not fall outside the acceptable range of competent choices and stating that [c]onsidering all the circumstances ... self-defense was arguably the only viable choice). Counsel also argued for a depraved mind, second-degree murder conviction by emphasizing Henry's response to his wife's attack as a blinding rage. Accordingly, Henry has failed to meet the first prong of Strickland as to this part of the claim.
Henry next argues that retrial counsel erroneously relied on a diminished capacity defense, which Florida law does not recognize. See State v. Bias, 653 So.2d 380, 382 (Fla.1995); Chestnut v. State, 538 So.2d 820, 821-25 (Fla.1989). The record conclusively rebuts this claim as well. In closing argument, retrial counsel emphasized that when Henry's wife cut him with a knife Henry freaked out, and counsel argued that Henry was blinded of what happened next. He told the jury the judge would instruct on manslaughter and second-degree murder talking about the depraved mind, not requiring premeditation. At the evidentiary hearing below, retrial counsel explained that he sought to show the offense to be a mindless, non-premeditated killing, to obtain a depraved mind, second-degree murder conviction. Henry's claim is based on retrial counsel's apparent misuse of the term diminished capacity in a written response to an inquiry from Henry's postconviction counsel. Both the trial transcript and the testimony of retrial counsel at the evidentiary hearing, however, demonstrate that counsel used a depraved mind, not a diminished capacity, defense at retrial.
Finally, Henry urges that retrial counsel failed to present the defense that Henry was incapable of forming the premeditated intent to kill Suzanne because of his abuse of crack cocaine before the murder, which exacerbated his underlying psychotic mental condition. Henry claims that such a defense was available under Gurganus v. State, 451 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1984). However, we have explained that Gurganus simply reaffirmed the long-standing rule in Florida that evidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible in cases involving specific intent. Chestnut, 538 So.2d at 822. As we said in State v. Bias , Gurganus stands for the principle that it is proper for an expert to testify `as to the effect of a given quantity of intoxicants' on the mind of the accused when there is sufficient evidence in the record to show or support an inference of the consumption of intoxicants. 653 So.2d at 383. Thus an expert may need to explain why a certain quantity of intoxicants causes intoxication in the defendant whereas it would not in other individuals. Id. To the extent that Henry's claim can be construed as alleging that retrial counsel should have used a voluntary intoxication defense, he fails to demonstrate error. Henry failed to present any evidence that he was actually intoxicated at the time of the offense. See Rivera v. State, 717 So.2d 477, 485 n. 12 (Fla.1998); see also Linehan v. State, 476 So.2d 1262, 1264 (Fla.1985) (We emphasize that voluntary intoxication is an affirmative defense and that the defendant must come forward with evidence of intoxication at the time of the offense sufficient to establish that he was unable to form the intent necessary to commit the crime charged.). In fact, retrial counsel testified that a defense mental health expert advised him that the defense case was weak on the issue of specific intent, and Henry did not present any evidence that the mental health experts retrial counsel contactedor anyone elsewould have testified that Henry was intoxicated at the time of the offense with or without regard to any underlying mental condition. We note, however, that we are unable to discern any difference between Henry's claim and the defense asserted in Easley v. State, 629 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), of which we disapproved in Bias, 653 So.2d at 383. We held in Bias that a psychiatrist's testimony that it was the combination of Easley's use of alcohol and drugs superimposed on her long-standing depression that rendered her incapable of formulating a specific intent to kill on the night in question, id. (quoting Easley, 629 So.2d at 1050), was inadmissible because it constituted evidence of the defendant's diminished capacity. Id. Therefore, to the extent Henry argues that the inadmissible defense of diminished capacity was available, the claim fails. The record shows that the defenses presented by retrial counsel were valid and supported by the evidence. Henry's proposed alternative theory of defense is either unsupported by the evidence (voluntary intoxication) or inadmissible (diminished capacity). Thus, Henry's entire claim amounts to no more than disagreement with retrial counsel's strategy, without offering a valid theory of his own. See Occhicone, 768 So.2d at 1048 (noting that [c]ounsel cannot be deemed ineffective merely because current counsel disagrees with trial counsel's strategic decisions). Because Henry has failed to establish the first prong of the Strickland, standard (deficient performance of counsel), we need not address the second prong (prejudice). See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052 ([T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim ... to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.).