Opinion ID: 1328033
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Penalty Phase Closing Arguments.

Text: In the opening statement in the penalty phase, trial counsel told the jury that they would hear mitigating evidence about Franks's life in order to determine the appropriate punishment to assure that this type of hell on earth never occurs again as a result of any forces placed in motion by David Scott Franks. Franks complains about the hell on earth comment as an example of trial counsel's deficient performance, especially since the prosecutor seized on it to argue in closing that a death sentence would prevent this hell on earth. However, trial counsel revisited the hell on earth comment during his closing argument: I ask you to choose life without parole, and I ask it for two reasons. One, life without parole by its terms is nothing but a long term or longer term death sentence, because under either sentence David Scott Franks will live the rest of his natural life in prison and die. But during that time he can know his family, and that verdict, that verdict assures that the hell that visited this earth as you've heard described here does not return. By the sentencing phase, the jury had already convicted Franks of murdering Debbie Wilson and seriously injuring her children. Although trial counsel continued to argue that others may have been involved in the crimes, it was not unreasonable for trial counsel to also acknowledge Franks's convictions and the ordeal undergone by the victims in this case in the context of urging a life without parole sentence, which would also ensure that it would not happen again. The trial court did not err by finding no deficient performance with the closing arguments. 3) The Alleged Failure to Pursue Plea Negotiations. Franks claims that his trial counsel was ineffective because they failed to effectively pursue a plea bargain with the State. A plea deal allowing Franks to plead guilty in exchange for a sentence less than death would have required the agreement of both parties. The evidence at the motion for new trial hearing failed to establish that either party was interested in such a deal before trial. Trial counsel testified that they pursued a possible plea bargain with the Hall County district attorney, but the district attorney was not willing to enter into a deal. Homans testified that the district attorney said she needed to hear something substantial that would justify such a deal, and they were unwilling to give away information about the possible involvement of other suspects in the event she deemed this to be not substantial and they had to try the case. [21] Moreover, Homans also testified that Franks had instructed them that he was not interested in pleading guilty to avoid a death sentence. Trial counsel pursued a possible plea bargain and the evidence does not show that a plea offer would have been extended by the State under the circumstances or, if extended, that such an offer would have been accepted by the defendant. Trial counsel's performance was not deficient. [22] 4) Voir Dire. Franks complains that his trial counsel was ineffective in their conduct of the voir dire at his trial. He claims that they failed to ask sufficient questions to some prospective jurors, that they failed to move to excuse for cause some prospective jurors for bias against Franks, and that they failed to adequately challenge the removal for cause of some prospective jurors. Trial counsel testified at the motion for new trial hearing that they prepared for death penalty voir dire by studying relevant cases and reading seminar materials. The record shows that the trial court asked all the prospective jurors about their opinion of the death penalty and whether they were able to consider and vote for all three sentencing options. The prosecutor and trial counsel were then given an opportunity to question the prospective jurors about the death penalty and other subjects. Although Franks takes issue with the failure of trial counsel to ask follow-up questions about the death penalty to a few prospective jurors, these jurors had already been questioned about the death penalty by the trial court and there is no indication that further questioning by trial counsel would have elicited favorable responses. With regard to the prospective jurors Franks claims were improperly retained or improperly excused for cause, the record shows that some of them could only have become alternate jurors and no alternate jurors were needed during Franks's trial. Therefore, any argument concerning these potential jurors is moot because no actual prejudice could have resulted from trial counsel's actions with regard to them. [23] The record also does not show that any other prospective jurors were erroneously qualified or disqualified because of any actions that trial counsel took or failed to take. Accordingly, we find no ineffective assistance of counsel during the voir dire in Franks's trial. 5) Trial Counsel's Strategy. Franks claims that his trial counsel failed to formulate a coherent guilt-innocence phase strategy. However, as previously detailed, trial counsel faced an enormous amount of evidence of their client's guilt and did not have their client's full cooperation until during the trial. Trial counsel formed and implemented a strategy that focused on the involvement of dangerous drug dealers who committed the killings and forced Franks to accompany them to the Hall County crime scene. Trial counsel uncovered witnesses and evidence to support this theory, they strongly challenged the thoroughness of the State's investigation, and the theory was consistent with Franks's trial testimony. They also argued Franks lacked the criminal intent that was necessary for a conviction for the attack on the children. Under the circumstances, we conclude that trial counsel's performance in selecting and pursuing their guilt-innocence strategy was reasonable and, therefore, not deficient. 6) Trial Counsel's Alleged Conflict of Interest. Robbins and Homans were appointed to represent Franks on the Hall County charges. Another lawyer was appointed to represent Franks in Haralson County on the two murder charges there, but Franks was not happy with that lawyer, and asked Robbins if he could represent Franks in Haralson County too. Franks had his family contact Robbins and the family agreed to retain Robbins to represent Franks in Haralson County for $25,000. [24] Although the Haralson County crimes were part of the same criminal transaction as the Hall County crimes and would necessarily involve overlapping investigation and litigation, Robbins inexplicably and inappropriately failed to inform the Hall County Indigent Defense Committee that he was being paid by Franks's family for his defense of Franks in Haralson County. [25] Also inexplicably, he did not seek to be appointed to represent Franks in Haralson County even though he knew Franks was indigent. Franks contends that this fee amounted to a conflict of interest that affected trial counsel's representation of him during the investigation and at trial. However, there is no evidence that Robbins' receipt of a fee from Franks's family for the Haralson County charges distracted him from his zealous representation of Franks or impaired his loyalty to Franks. To prevail on a conflict-of-interest claim when no objection was raised at trial, a defendant must show an actual conflict of interest by his lawyers that `adversely affected [their] performance.' [26] The conflict of interest must be palpable and have a substantial basis in fact. A theoretical or speculative conflict will not impugn a conviction which is supported by competent evidence. [27] Because Franks failed to show the existence of an actual conflict of interest with respect to a material factual or legal issue or to a course of action [28] or how his lawyers' performance was adversely affected by the alleged conflict, he cannot prevail on this enumeration. [29] 7) Trial Counsel's Mitigation Investigation. Franks alleges that trial counsel's investigation into his background for mitigation evidence was inadequate. This Court has previously recognized the importance of conducting a reasonable investigation into mitigation evidence to be used at the sentencing phase of a death penalty trial: before selecting a strategy, counsel must conduct a reasonable investigation into the defendant's background for mitigation evidence to use at sentencing. [30] In Wiggins v. Smith, [31] the United States Supreme Court measured trial counsel's mitigation investigation against the 1989 American Bar Association Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases. The Court described these guidelines as well-defined norms and noted that they have long been considered as appropriate guides to determining the reasonableness of counsel's performance. [32] The Court in Wiggins concluded that trial counsel's mitigation investigation fell short of these standards because trial counsel limited his investigation to a narrow set of sources, did not pursue obvious sources of information, and failed to follow the standard practice of the jurisdiction at the time to have an expert prepare a social history report. [33] Robbins testified that he and Homans recognized that the evidence against Franks seemed overwhelming. They therefore recognized that the penalty phase was critical and their ultimate strategy was to save his life. Although they had wanted to pursue a strategy in guilt-innocence that other more culpable people were involved, they were not able to develop the defense to the extent that we wanted to. Nevertheless, the strategy for the penalty phase was to continue to argue that other more culpable people were involved and also to present testimony from family about Franks's good character and alcoholic father. Shortly after being appointed in 1994, Robbins met with Franks's family and asked about his background, asked for his school records, and asked them to gather pictures of Franks's life. [34] Once Homans was appointed, he was principally in charge of the mitigation phase. Homans testified that he first met Franks's family in February 1997 and asked for information about Franks's background. He did not ask for any records because he believed that Robbins had already made that request; he reviewed the school records but saw nothing remarkable. Homans talked with Franks's family members over the phone to discuss information to be used at sentencing and shortly before trial, he met with some of the family who would testify at the penalty phase. Trial counsel did not engage any experts to assist in preparing a mitigation case, [35] although they had an investigator who interviewed people in the area where Franks had been raised. They studied seminar materials on mitigation issues. Trial counsel learned from Franks's brother about Franks's violent, alcoholic father; they had their investigator look into Franks's father, who was deceased. Trial counsel had discussed early in the process having Franks evaluated by a mental health expert, but decided not to engage an expert because they were under the erroneous impression that they could not make an ex parte request for funds, and that anything a mental health expert found would have to be turned over to the State, even if it was adverse to Franks and trial counsel decided not to use it. [36] After having Franks evaluated during trial by a psychiatrist who testified that Franks suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, trial counsel decided not to offer any additional evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder as a mitigating factor. At the penalty phase, they presented eight family and former-family members, Franks, and a poster showing pictures of Franks's life. We need not decide whether trial counsel's investigation for the mitigation evidence was reasonable, because Franks has made no showing that he was prejudiced by the investigation taken. [37] At the motion for new trial hearing, appellate counsel presented no competent evidence of what a more thorough mitigation investigation would have uncovered, and instead relied on a detailed summary and evaluation of Franks's life. [38] However, that summary was not offered into evidence, but was presented to the trial court under seal, with no testimony as to who prepared it, and no showing that it, or the evidence it detailed, would be admissible at a trial. Appellate counsel claimed that this procedure was necessary because ineffective assistance of counsel claims are litigated on habeas corpus, [39] and allowing the State to learn about this information would give it an advantage at a possible retrial. However, this procedure dooms the ineffectiveness claims regarding the mitigation investigation because it prevents the trial court and appellate court from evaluating whether prejudice resulted from trial counsel's alleged failure to uncover and present mitigating evidence. Because Franks failed to offer mitigation evidence that should have been presented at trial, he cannot satisfy his burden of demonstrating prejudice. [40] Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial on this ground.