Opinion ID: 77514
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Counsel's Advice Concerning Lynd's Submission to State Evaluation

Text: 22 Lynd claims that his retained counsel was ineffective because he advised Lynd to refuse to submit to a state mental health evaluation. He argues that this conduct was unreasonable because Lynd's mental health was at issue during the trial and sentencing and his failure to submit to the evaluation resulted in the prejudicial exclusion of his expert testimony. See Scott v. Wainwright, 698 F.2d 427, 429 (11th Cir. 1983) (holding that defense counsel must be familiar with the facts and the law in order to advise the defendant of the options available such that the advice is within the realm of competence demanded of attorneys representing criminal defendants) (citations omitted). 23 As discussed above, at a pretrial hearing on October 5, 1989, Lynd testified that he would not submit to a state evaluation because he did not want to speak with the state expert. He believed the expert lied about what he said during a previous interview and did not want the expert to distort anything else he said. At the May 5, 1997 evidentiary hearing, Lynd's retained counsel stated, for the first time in the course of the proceedings, that he advised Lynd not to submit to a state expert evaluation because he believed the state trial court incorrectly denied Lynd a defense expert and until [Lynd] got one there was no sense in giving [the State] the evaluation. Based on the foregoing testimony, the state habeas court found that Lynd did not want to speak with the state expert because he did not trust him and that Lynd decided, of his own accord and apart from any advice given by counsel, to refuse to submit to an evaluation. Therefore the reasonableness of counsel's advice was immaterial. A review of the record indicates that the evidence supports the state habeas court's finding that Lynd did not [make] the requisite showing that trial counsel's performance was inadequate. Therefore, we cannot find that the state court applied Strickland to this case in an objectively unreasonable manner or made an unreasonable factual finding in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings.