Opinion ID: 1129288
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Preparing the Clinical Psychologist

Text: Next, Lott alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective in providing background information to Dr. Dee, the clinical psychologist who examined Lott and testified during the penalty phase. The circuit court rejected this claim without discussion, because postconviction counsel agreed that the evidence presented at the hearing failed to support the requested relief. The record reveals that Lott did, in fact, abandon this claim. He cannot revive it on appeal. Cf. Anderson v. State, 822 So.2d 1261, 1266 (Fla.2002) (refusing to review claims under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), that the defendant intentionally abandoned). Even if Lott had preserved the claim, however, we would reject it for lack of prejudice. Dr. Dee admitted that the new information he received from the postconviction investigator would have bolstered his testimony, but would not necessarily have change[d] my diagnosis or opinion. Thus, our confidence in Lott's sentence is not undermined.