Opinion ID: 1119911
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Further Action Which Competent Counsel Would Have Undertaken

Text: The referee found that competent counsel would have undertaken in-depth interviews with petitioner's family, friends, and neighbors in an effort to uncover mitigating evidence. He would not have relied on Ana Maria Llamas to make arrangements for the parents to come to California, but would have made arrangements for their attendance similar to those made for Dr. Godinez. The referee noted that de la Pena had explained his failure to investigate as the result of his fear that an investigation might turn up aggravating evidence. According to de la Pena, an unnamed police officer in Buena Vista had referred to petitioner's reputation for violence and affinity for 9-millimeter weapons. An uncle of petitioner's, whom de la Pena had encountered on the road to El Pilon, assertedly told him that petitioner had once shot someone in the leg. [3] De la Pena also observed that when petitioner was arrested in California, a large quantity of narcotics was discovered in the house. The referee considered counsel's reliance upon the statement of the uncle and the police officer unfounded and found that competent counsel would have conducted further investigation to determine the basis and reliability of these apparently adverse statements. He went on to conclude that Attorney [d]e [l]a Pena's failure to conduct any penalty phase investigation about petitioner's individual characteristics cannot be viewed as an informed tactical decision because it is inherently unreasonable to forego any search for mitigation because of the fear of some inchoate adverse information. Unless a minimally adequate investigation is undertaken, it is impossible to make a tactical decision about whether to present or withhold mitigating evidence at the penalty phase.