Opinion ID: 1662097
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Hively's Testimony

Text: Smulls claims his counsel erred in calling Dr. Wells Hively during penalty phase because Dr. Hively was not the author of Smulls' psychological report, which was prepared as evidence in mitigation. The expert who prepared the report was unavailable, and Dr. Hively, who worked with the expert on the case, was called as a replacement. Counsel cannot be faulted because she had little choice but to call another witness familiar with the report. In addition, trial counsel's testimony to the contrary notwithstanding, it is unlikely that Smulls suffered prejudice from counsel's choice to present a different expert than the one who prepared the report. Doctor Hively testified that his entire office, including himself, was involved in the preparation of the report, that he examined Smulls four times, and that his opinion was based upon those examinations as well as the results of psychological tests and police reports. The motion court's denial of this claim was not clearly erroneous. Smulls also alleges that instead of calling Dr. Hively, his counsel should have called a comprehensive mental health expert. Counsel is not ineffective for failing to shop around for additional experts. Lyons v. State, 39 S.W.3d at 41.