Opinion ID: 1129349
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to Inquire into Lamarca's Competence

Text: Lamarca claims that defense counsel was deficient for failing to order an additional psychological evaluation when Lamarca informed counsel that he planned to represent himself during the penalty phase. This claim rests largely on the testimony of Dr. Glenn Caddy, who testified at the evidentiary hearing that Lamarca became incompetent after hearing his daughter, Tonya Flynn, testify at trial that he raped her. Caddy testified that Tonya's testimony triggered Lamarca's posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to the point that Lamarca became incompetent to represent himself, and Lamarca's act of banging his head against the glass during a meeting with his penalty phase counsel confirmed this. In rejecting this claim, the trial court concluded that the uncontroverted testimony of [Lamarca's defense attorneys] reflects that the defendant acted rationally, consulted them about his case, and was of sound mind prior to and during trial. This conclusion is supported by competent, substantial evidence, and Lamarca has not presented evidence sufficient to refute it. Defense counsel investigated Lamarca's mental health status well before trial by hiring Dr. Michael Maher to conduct a psychological evaluation and by contacting Dr. Caddy numerous times before trial on Lamarca's behalf. At Lamarca's request, defense counsel arranged a meeting with Lamarca and Dr. Caddy before the penalty phase and followed up on this meeting with numerous phone calls. The trial court also found Lamarca competent to represent himself in the penalty phase after conducting a valid Faretta inquiry. [5] See Weaver v. State, 894 So.2d 178, 193 (Fla.2004) (recognizing that the focus of the Faretta inquiry is to determine whether the defendant is competent to waive his right to counsel, not whether a defendant is competent to conduct legal representation), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1051, 125 S.Ct. 2297, 161 L.Ed.2d 1092 (2005). Not only is the trial court's order supported by competent, substantial evidence, but the evidence Lamarca offers to refute it is also insufficient. The trial court's order states that Dr. Caddy was not a particularly credible witness. This Court recognize[s] and honor[s] the trial court's superior vantage point in assessing the credibility of witnesses. Stephens v. State, 748 So.2d 1028, 1034 (Fla.1999), cited in Davis v. State, 915 So.2d 95, 130-31 (Fla.2005). Furthermore, the mere fact that Lamarca banged his head against the glass is not sufficient to establish that his attorneys were ineffective for failing to request a mental health evaluation. In Koon v. Dugger, 619 So.2d 246, 250 (Fla. 1993), we denied an ineffectiveness claim based on defense counsel's decision not to require a mental health evaluation even though a defendant was prone to courtroom outbursts. Because nothing in the record suggest[ed] that [the defendant] lacked the ability to consult with his attorney or that he lacked a factual understanding of the proceeding against him, his counsel was not ineffective for failing to obtain an additional competency evaluation. Id. The same analysis applies here. The trial court's finding is supported by competent, substantial evidence; therefore, we affirm the trial court's order denying this claim. See Windom, 886 So.2d at 924-26 (rejecting ineffectiveness claim for failure to call mental health experts, in part because the record did not support the testimony of the experts who testified at the evidentiary hearing).