Opinion ID: 1721127
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether counsel failed to anticipate and prepare for the penalty phase of trial.

Text: Appellant complains that counsel failed to investigate and develop critical statutory and nonstatutory mitigation evidence during the penalty phase. Appellant goes to great lengths to set forth the various publications which were available at the time of trial to help counsel prepare for the penalty phase in a capital case. Had counsel adequately investigated, Appellant concludes, then he would have presented mitigating evidence such as Appellant's lack of criminal record, the dysfunction present in his biological family (although he was adopted at birth), his loving relationship with his son, and his considerable talent in sports. Further, had counsel seriously prepared for the penalty phase, he would have moved for a continuance to allow the jury to cool off, as well as renewed all pretrial motions. With regard to the myriad of resources available to counsel at that time, we find it completely irrelevant to the determination of counsel's effectiveness. Appellant does not even state how these publications would have aided counsel. Further, it is apparent that counsel did present many positive aspects of Appellant's life during the guilt phase of trial. When the same jury sits in both parts of a bifurcated proceeding in a capital murder trial, all evidence introduced in the guilt phase may be considered by the jury during the sentencing phase. Moore v. Commonwealth, Ky., 771 S.W.2d 34 (1988), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1060, 110 S.Ct. 1536, 108 L.Ed.2d 774 (1990). Finally, we find absolutely no credence in Appellant's theory that counsel should have moved for a continuance and renewed pretrial motions. This is simply not grounds for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Having reviewed each allegation of ineffective trial counsel, we conclude that Appellant has failed to demonstrate any claims which are not refuted by an analysis and review of the trial record. As noted by the trial court, many of Appellant's claims are nothing more than bold assertions without any factual basis. Such does not justify an evidentiary hearing pursuant to RCr 11.42. On review, as a court far removed from the passion and grit of the courtroom, we must be especially careful not to second-guess or condemn in hindsight the decision of defense counsel. A defense attorney must enjoy great discretion in trying a case, especially with regard to trial strategy and tactics. Under Strickland, supra , it is not enough that counsel erred and Appellant's trial reached an unfavorable result. Instead, Appellant must demonstrate that, absent counsel's errors, there exists a reasonable probability the jury would have reached a different verdict. Id. Inasmuch as we might not necessarily agree with trial counsel's trial strategy and may likely have employed other tactics, we do not believe that in light of all of the circumstances his performance was outside of the wide range of professionally competent assistance. Id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. at 2066.