Opinion ID: 852493
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Failure to Consider Mental Retardation as a Mitigating Factor

Text: In sentencing Henley the trial court found the existence of four aggravating factors and no mitigating factors. Pointing to evidence presented at the post-conviction hearing that he is mentally retarded, Henley complains, [A]ppellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance when he failed to raise on direct appeal the trial court's failure to consider Henley's mental retardation as a mitigator at sentencing. Br. of Appellant at 18. In preparation for the post-conviction hearing the defense team retained the, services of Dr. David Cerling, a clinical psychologist. He opined that Henley was mildly mentally retarded, which is considered to be a life-long condition. P-Cr. at 11. In reaching this opinion Dr. Cerling examined, among other documents, portions of the trial record, including several letters Henley had sent to the trial court while his case was pending, an elementary school assessment of Henley conducted in 1978, and a Social Security disability assessment conducted of Henley in 1990. Dr. Cerling also administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III test, on which Henley registered a full-scale score of 64. This score confirmed that Henley was in the mild mentally retarded range. P-Cr. at 14. But this evidence surfaced for the first time at the post-conviction hearing, some six years after Henley's trial. And apparently Henley was adept at concealing his limitations. Even Dr. Cerling acknowledged, I would not have, if I had made a guess based on his verbal interaction, I would not have thought that this person is in that range of mild mental retardation. P-Cr. at 16. Noting that Henley could read and commenting on the level of Henley's verbal skills, standby counsel testified that he did not detect any mental retardation and it did not occur to him that Henley might have been retarded. P-Cr. at 65-66. If it had occurred to him, according to standby counsel, I would have filed a Notice of Mental Disease or Defect, whether [Henley] wanted me to or not. P-Cr. at 66. Appellate counsel likewise testified that he had no evidence that Henley was mentally retarded and no indication from Henley that he was receiving Social Security benefits. [9] In fact Henley concedes that he did not tell [appellate counsel], or anyone else, that he was receiving Social Security benefits because of mental retardation. Br. of Appellant at 18. As he did throughout the trial, Henley represented himself at the sentencing hearing. In mitigation Henley argued he was under the influence of drugs and alcohol when the crimes were committed, that he was highly emotional, and he was suffering from deep depression which altered his thinking. Tr. at 958-59. Before his argument and in response to the trial court's inquiry, Henley made several additions and corrections to his pre-sentence report, Significantly, Henley objected to the accuracy of a section of the report that indicated he had received mental health treatment. Henley was adamant, I never seen anyone for a mental health as to a referral to see a psychiatrist, or a psychologist, so that is not true. I want to have that changed. . . . Tr. at 948. It is clear that the trial court did not consider Henley's mental retardation as a mitigating factor because no such claim was presented to the trial court. If the defendant does not advance a factor to be mitigating at sentencing, this Court will presume that the factor is not significant and the defendant is precluded from advancing it as a mitigating circumstance for the first time on appeal. Spears v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1161, 1167 (Ind.2000). Appellate counsel cannot have rendered ineffective assistance for failing to do that which he is prohibited from doing. [10]