Opinion ID: 856125
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Qualifications of Expert

Text: Petitioner next argues that Sattler’s preparation of Dr. Levy was deficient. The sentencing court did not allow Dr. Levy to testify as to Petitioner’s drug use because of a lack of foundation—Dr. Levy did not know how often Petitioner had been using drugs, or in what quantities. He did not even know if, or for how long, Petitioner had slept between the time he ingested drugs and the time he committed the crime. Although Sattler’s strategy—to focus on intoxication rather than addiction—was reasonable, she may have failed to implement it appropriately. But even if that failure 26 MILES V . RYAN represents performance so deficient as to meet the standards applicable when we review a Strickland claim under AEDPA—a question we do not decide—Petitioner still fails to demonstrate prejudice. On this point, the state court made no determination on the merits, so we must review de novo. See Porter, 130 S. Ct. at 452 (“Because the state court did not decide whether Porter’s counsel was deficient, we review this element of Porter’s Strickland claim de novo.”). Significantly, the sentencing judge was aware of Petitioner’s drug use—the PSR, which quoted some of Dr. Levy’s opinions, contained information about Petitioner’s “coming down” from crack cocaine used the night before the crime, as well as a diagnosis that Petitioner was in a “disassociated” state. The excluded testimony would have added very little more. Furthermore, as the district court noted, even if Dr. Levy could have testified as to the effect of Petitioner’s drug use on his mental state, that testimony would have been of limited value in view of: (1) Petitioner’s “acknowledgment that he was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense”; and (2) Dr. Levy’s other testimony that “regardless of his drug abuse Petitioner knew the difference between right and wrong and was capable of walking away from the offense, thus negating any finding of significant impairment under A.R.S. § 13-703(G)(1).”15 It is not reasonably probable that Dr. Levy’s excluded testimony would have influenced the sentencing judge because, even if the judge had considered Petitioner’s drug use to be a form of reduced, nonstatutory intoxication, the mitigating effect of that condition would have been insufficient to outweigh the 15 Section 13-703 (1993) has since been renumbered as Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-751 (2011). MILES V . RYAN 27 aggravating factors outlined and discussed above. Consequently, Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, regarding the qualifications of Dr. Levy, fails on the prejudice prong of Strickland, reviewed de novo.