Opinion ID: 867277
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lack of mitigation at penalty phase

Text: ¶ 77 Hargrave contends that his decision not to present mitigation at trial prevents this Court from adequately reviewing his case. He relies on State v. Cornell, in which the record did not contain all of the mitigating evidence and circumstances that a reasonable investigation and preparation might have enabled counsel to present to the court and that might properly have been part of the record. 179 Ariz. 314, 335-36, 878 P.2d 1352, 1373-74 (1994). In Cornell, however, the defendant represented himself in the guilt phase of the trial, and because of his frequent invocation, then waiver, of his right to represent himself, his sentencing-phase counsel was not adequately prepared for the sentencing hearing. Id. at 335, 878 P.2d at 1373. ¶ 78 In contrast, Hargrave's defense counsel represented him throughout all phases of the trial. The defense made a strategic decision not to present mitigation evidence and made a thorough record regarding the mitigation strategy at the penalty phase: [T]his is a decision I have not come to lightly. I discussed it with ... several other attorneys and two mitigation specialists, including my client [and] his family. Everybody is in[ ] total agreement about my position. We accord defense counsel's strategic decision to not present mitigation no weight and conclude that it does not impair our ability to independently review the death sentence.