Opinion ID: 1737862
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Claim III. Guilt-phase Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Text: Brown contends within this claim that he was denied a full and fair hearing in that the postconviction circuit court did not address all the points he raised concerning ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt phase of his trial. Brown contends that the record demonstrates the following ineffective assistance of counsel: (a) defense counsel failed to present to the jury certain exculpatory evidence; (b) defense counsel failed to attack the credibility of certain State witnesses; (c) due to the State's failure to disclose to defense counsel until the first day of trial the location of two of the State's witnesses, defense counsel was rendered unable to investigate exculpatory evidence these witnesses could have contributed; (d) defense counsel failed to present exculpatory evidence as to Brown's mental instability, alcohol abuse, and delusional thinking; (e) defense counsel failed to inform the jury that Brown's courtroom demeanor was affected by antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs administered to him at the Hillsborough County Jail; (f) defense counsel conceded guilt without Brown's consent; (g) defense counsel failed to object or move for a mistrial after learning that the jury had been exposed to a newspaper article concerning the trial; (h) defense counsel's efforts were hampered because the investigator assigned to Brown's case failed to undertake the requested investigation; (i) defense counsel failed to explore a diminished capacity defense showing that Brown was psychotic, sleep-deprived, and intoxicated at the time of the offense; and (j) the cumulative effect of an incomplete investigation, overwhelming public defender caseload, and concealment of key witnesses by the State deprived Brown of his due process rights. In reviewing these claims, we have considered the trial record and the record of the postconviction evidentiary hearing, including the circuit court's order.
The trial record reflects the following as to the guilt phase of Brown's trial. The State presented eleven witnesses, four of whom were cross-examined by Chalu. Among the State witnesses was Hillsborough County Sheriffs Detective Paul Davis, who testified as to Brown's statements to police at Brown's residence and in a patrol car on the day of the murder. Brown told Davis that he had gone to the house where the victim was staying with her sister and that he had parked nearby. Brown cut away a padlock on a door of the house with a pair of bolt cutters that he was carrying. He went back to his car, moved his car to the front of the house, and retrieved his gun from under the seat of the car. With the gun in his belt, Brown walked up to the residence where he had cut the padlock, walked through the door he had unlocked, woke the victim, and told her he wanted to talk to her. She shouted at him to leave. Brown immediately shot her in the head and then shot in the head a child who was sleeping in the same bed. [11] Upon cross-examination of Detective Davis, Chalu established that Brown had told Davis he did not enter the house and awaken the victim with the intent to kill her. Chalu presented no evidence during the guilt phase. By declining to put on evidence, defense counsel gained the right to present an additional guilt-phase closing argument in rebuttal to the State's closing argument. The judge instructed the jury on armed burglary and lesser offenses including armed trespass. He also instructed upon first-degree felony murder, premeditated murder, and lesser homicide charges including second and third-degree murder.
The record of the postconviction evidentiary hearing reflects the following. Chalu was responsible for presentation of the entire case and represented Brown during the guilt phase of the trial. As stated previously in discussing claim II, Chalu worked closely throughout the trial with co-counsel Alldredge, who represented Brown during the penalty phase only. Chalu testified at the postconviction hearing that, upon his appointment to represent Brown, he immediately engaged the services of psychologist Dr. Robert Berland because of certain red flags noticed by Chalu, such as Brown's appearing to be of sub-average intelligence and possibly exhibiting signs of sub-clinical mental illness. Chalu testified that both he and Alldredge talked with Berland and other mental-health experts in order to decide upon their defense strategy and to facilitate data collection as to Brown's history. Chalu determined that nothing the experts found before the trial relevant to Brown's mental state would be useful in support of Brown's case during the guilt phase of the trial. Thus, mental health expert testimony was used only in the penalty phase. Chalu testified that he and the mental health experts knew that Brown was receiving anti-psychotic medication at the Hillsborough County Jail but that he did not present this information to the judge or jury because he had decided not to employ a mental health defense in the guilt phase. Chalu testified that his theory of defense was dictated by three factors: Brown's account to Chalu of how the murder had occurred; mental health experts' accounts of what they understood to be Brown's mental state at the time of the offense; and the fact that the trial court had denied the defense motion to suppress Brown's confession. Chalu explained that, once he knew the confession would be admitted into evidence, he determined that the only viable defense as to felony murder was to argue for a lesser offense of armed trespass, rather than armed burglary, which would support a verdict of third-degree murder. As to premeditated murder, Chalu's strategy was to argue, as Brown stated in his confession, that he shot the victim only on an impulse and had no preformed intent to kill her when he entered the room where she was sleeping and woke her. Chalu stated that he interviewed several of Brown's relatives, including Brown's father, before the trial and determined that they could offer no testimony in support of Brown's guilt-phase defense. Chalu testified that, if he had discovered any information from family members or others relevant to premeditation, he would have presented such testimony at the guilt phase. As to his strategy of declining to present defense evidence, Chalu explained: [W]e had an uphill battle because once the motion to suppress confession was denied, we had to figure out some way to try to prevent the case from going into penalty phase, to try to get a lesser. So all my efforts were directed to and all the tactics that I employed in my first phase were directed to maximizing the possibility of getting a lesser, and one of those was to try to keep the opening and closing argument and not put on any evidence in the first phase. Upon cross-examination, Chalu stated that his strategy of declining to present evidence and seeking a conviction of a lesser offense had been successful in at least one other first-degree murder trial in which he had faced prosecutor Benito. Chalu testified that in communicating this trial strategy to Brown, I always took great pains to try to make sure that Mr. Brown understood what we were saying because he was a little slow.... We were trying to get him to understand everything we were saying and the rationale for what we were doing as much as we were able to. Chalu testified that the prosecutor had not offered any plea bargain for a life sentence but that he had offered to allow Brown to plead guilty to first-degree murder and proceed directly to the penalty phase. Chalu testified that he informed Brown of this option, and Brown chose to reject it. As to Brown's consent to the defense strategy of conceding guilt to a lesser degree of murder, Chalu testified, Mr. Brown was pretty much agreeable to pretty much everything we did, to be honest with you. Chalu testified that he had no problem receiving information requested from the investigator assigned to the case. As to school and jail records, Chalu stated that it was ultimately his responsibility to retrieve any relevant records and that he believed at the time of the trial that all relevant records had been gathered. As to the State witnesses made known to defense counsel for the first time on the first day of trial, Chalu testified that he asked the judge for time to depose them, took brief depositions, and determined that their testimony was not of any great consequence to the case. Chalu testified that he saw no reason to move for a mistrial after learning that at least one juror had been exposed to pretrial publicity, because he was satisfied after the judge's inquiry that the jurors had not read the article in question or had only read the headline. Therefore, he stated, it was inconsequential and not worth pursuing any further because there was no prejudice to the jury or to Mr. Brown because of the incident. On cross-examination by the State, Chalu testified that he had been able to keep the jury from hearing any evidence as to the State's theory of Brown's motive for this offense, which was that Brown wanted to keep the seventeen-year-old victim, who was the daughter of his girlfriend, from reporting to authorities the fact that she and Brown had had a sexual relationship. Chalu also was able to exclude evidence of a robbery and shooting allegedly committed by Brown later on the day of the instant murder. During the postconviction evidentiary hearing, Brown also presented the testimony of Dr. Steven Szabo, a psychiatrist who evaluated Brown in the Hillsborough County Jail where Brown was awaiting trial in March 1986. Dr. Szabo testified that he diagnosed Brown as schizophrenic and prescribed Mellaril, an antipsychotic medication, but that this medication was never forced upon Brown. Szabo testified that he would have presented this testimony at Brown's trial in 1987 but that he was not contacted by counsel for Brown. After considering this evidence and argument based on this evidence, the circuit court denied Brown the relief he requested in his guilt-phase ineffective assistance claims, concluding that Brown failed to meet both the ineffectiveness and prejudice prongs of the Strickland test. The circuit court order stated in relevant part: The testimony of Mr. Chalu, guilt phase counsel for the defense, refutes any deficiency in investigation, objections, or preparation and the Defendant has failed to show any deficiency. Guilt phase counsel had a clear theory of defense, i.e., lack of intent, and the record shows that he meticulously prevented the introduction of highly prejudicial evidence against his client. Assuming once again that the Defendant could show some deficient performance, he does not show how such resulted in prejudice. Even with the benefit of hindsight, it does not appear that guilt phase counsel would have done things differently. Order II at 4.
Brown challenges the sufficiency of the circuit court's order denying postconviction relief on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt phase. Brown claims that the court erred by failing to attach relevant portions of the record in support of its denial of this claim and by failing to address certain points raised in his postconviction motion. We have recently clarified that record attachments are not required for a postconviction order if a court has stated its rationale in its written order denying postconviction relief. Diaz v. Dugger, 719 So.2d 865, 867 (Fla.1998); see also Mills v. State, 684 So.2d 801, 804 (Fla.1996); Roberts v. State, 678 So.2d 1232, 1236 (Fla.1996). Here, the record reflects that the circuit judge entered her order after hearing testimony relevant to this postconviction claim from defense counsel Chalu and Alldredge, as well as from Brown's childhood neighbor and Brown's brother and stepbrother. Brown himself did not testify at the postconviction evidentiary hearing. The record reflects that the circuit judge held a full evidentiary hearing, addressed the relevant points raised by Brown, and adequately explained the rationale for her decision denying relief. We find no error in the circuit court's postconviction proceedings and order.

We begin our inquiry into whether the performance of Chalu was deficient by recognizing: (1) there is a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052; and (2) Brown bears the burden of proving that counsel's representation was unreasonable under prevailing professional norms and that the challenged action was not sound strategy. Id. at 688-89, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Brown argues that Chalu failed to adequately investigate the possibility of an intoxication defense and failed to question others, including Brown's brother, Jimmy Brown, who could have testified as lay witnesses as to Brown's condition immediately preceding the crime. After the court denied the defense motion to suppress Brown's confession, Chalu determined that the only viable defense was to concede that Brown had committed the murder and argue for a conviction of a charge less than first-degree murder. In considering his strategy, Chalu concluded that the available potential witnesses, such as Jimmy Brown, could not present evidence of Brown's state of mind prior to the murder such that an insanity or diminished capacity defense would be viable. The record reflects that Chalu also made strategic decisions not to present to the jury certain witnesses who might have revealed to the jury prejudicial information about Brown's criminal history. Chalu made an informed evaluation of his options and then presented a defense of lack of intent to commit premeditated murder. Chalu also argued that the State failed to prove intent to commit armed burglary. If successful, these defenses would have left only armed trespass as the underlying felony to support a felony murder conviction, which would not have been first-degree felony murder. In view of the trial record and the testimony of Chalu, we agree with the circuit court that Brown failed to demonstrate that the performance of Chalu fell below the Strickland standard. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Sims, 155 F.3d at 1306.
Brown contends that Chalu failed to make an effective attack on the credibility of State witnesses Gail and Barry Barlow, who were in the house with the victim at the time of the murder, and to investigate mitigating evidence the Barlows might have provided as to Brown's mental instability, alcohol abuse, and delusional thinking. At trial, Chalu objected to their testimony because he had not been notified that the State would call them as witnesses, and the prosecutor argued that they should be allowed to testify because he had only recently discovered their location. The trial court allowed Chalu to depose these witnesses after the end of the first day of trial, and they subsequently testified without cross-examination by Chalu. In the postconviction hearing, Chalu stated that during deposition he found the Barlows to be hostile to Brown and stated, I don't think they would have assisted me at all in any manner. On this record, we conclude that the strategic decision of Chalu not to cross-examine the Barlows or present their testimony during the penalty phase was well within the range of professional assistance. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052 ([S]trategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable.)
Brown argues that Chalu was ineffective in failing to inform the jury that Brown's inability to react during trial was caused by antidepressant and antipsychotic medication administered at the Hillsborough County Jail. Brown argues that counsel should have either notified the jury of Brown's medicated state, requested that the medication be stopped, or requested a medical reason for Brown's involuntary medication. Brown contends that information about this medication was critical for the jury to consider in assessing whether Brown could have formed sufficient specific intent to support his guilt or premeditation and in deciding how to weigh potential mental health mitigators when recommending Brown's sentence. The record reflects that Chalu testified in the postconviction hearing that he and the defense mental health experts knew that Brown was being administered the drugs but that Chalu chose not to present this information to the judge or jury during the guilt phase because he was not presenting a mental health defense and Brown did not testify This claim does not meet either prong of Strickland.
Brown contends that Chalu failed to act as an advocate for Brown at the guilt phase of the trial and did not adequately inform him of the trial strategy of conceding guilt. The record reflects that the State's primary evidence was a confession from Brown, in which he told police officers that he entered the house where the victim was sleeping and shot her when she began shouting for him to leave. Chalu testified in the postconviction evidentiary hearing that, once the motion to suppress Brown's confession was denied, defense counsel made the tactical decision to argue during the guilt phase for a conviction of the lesser offense of armed trespass, rather than armed burglary, which would enable Brown to avoid a first-degree murder conviction. As to premeditation, Chalu presented the defense that Brown did not have an intent to kill when he entered the house where the victim was sleeping and encountered her there, and thus he was guilty at most of second-degree murder. During cross-examination, Chalu established that Brown had told Detective Davis he did not enter the house and awaken the victim with the intent to kill her. In his guilt-phase closing argument, Chalu told the jury: The fact is Mr. Brown is guilty of homicide, but he is not guilty of murder in the first degree. . . . . ... I have raised a reasonable doubt, several reasonable doubts as to Mr. Brown's intent when he went over to the house that night and committed those crimes, because his intent is what this case boils down to. If he did not have a fully formed conscious intent to kill, then he is not guilty of first-degree murder. If he did not have a fully formed conscious intent to commit a crime when he entered that home, then he is not guilty of armed burglary. . . . . [Second-degree murder] is an act or a series of acts that, one, a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonabl[y] certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and is done from, and here is the Defendant's intent, ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent. I went in there to find out why she was lying about me. Murder in the second degree. An impulsive act out of ill will, spite, or an evil intent. That is a depraved mind, second degree murder. ... [B]eyond any reasonable doubt Mr. Brown is guilty of murder in the second degree, a most serious crime as the Judge will instruct you. It carries up to life in the Florida State Prison. . . . . ... [I]f you find the Defendant guilty of first degree murder, you're finding him guilty of the charge which has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Has second degree murder been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? It most certainly has. Thus, the record reflects that Chalu did not concede first-degree premeditated murder or felony murder, but rather, the record supports that Chalu set upon a strategy to do what he reasoned he could do in light of Brown's confession to convince the jury to find Brown guilty of a lesser offense. Faced with the overwhelmingly inculpatory evidence of Brown's confession, Chalu made his informed decision to argue for a lesser conviction in an effort to avoid a death sentence. See McNeal v. Wainwright, 722 F.2d 674 (11th Cir.1984). In this case, we find that Chalu provided full representation to Brown and made reasonable, informed tactical decisions as to his defense. Thus, we find that Chalu did act as an advocate for Brown, who has failed to demonstrate that Chalu's tactical decision to argue for a conviction on a lesser charge constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel under either prong of Strickland. On this record, it is clear that Chalu repeatedly informed Brown of his strategy, believed that Brown understood it, and concluded that Brown agreed with the strategic approach. As to trial strategy, Chalu testified that Brown was cooperative and agreeable to pretty much everything we did. We note that Brown did not testify as to this or any other claim during the postconviction hearing. Thus, on this record, we find that Brown has demonstrated no ineffectiveness because the evidence presented during the postconviction hearing was that Chalu insured Brown's understanding of the implications of conceding guilt to a lesser homicide charge and that Brown consented to Chalu's trial strategy.
This claim is discussed separately in the subdivision dealing with Claim X, Brown's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as to an inquiry concerning juror misconduct.
Brown contends that Chalu was ineffective in that he failed to present evidence of Brown's mental psychosis as well as sleep deprivation, exhaustion, or intoxication at the time of the murder. According to the trial record, Brown told police detectives that he was not intoxicated on drugs or alcohol at the time of the murder and that he had a clear memory of the murder and events surrounding it. At the evidentiary hearing, Chalu testified that he conferred at length with Brown as to his mental state at the time of the murder and with mental health experts who had examined Brown. From these conversations and reports, Chalu concluded that there was no evidentiary support for an insanity defense or a lack of specific intent based on intoxication. Thus, based on evidence in this record, we find that the performance of Chalu as to this claim did not fall below the Strickland standard.
We agree with the circuit court that, even assuming that Chalu was ineffective, Brown did not demonstrate prejudice. Any defense that Chalu chose to present would have been overshadowed by the overwhelmingly inculpatory evidence at trial of Brown's confession to police. Not only did Chalu present a potentially viable defense within the parameters dictated by the confession, he also prevented the jury from learning of evidence of a subsequent robbery and shooting allegedly committed by Brown and the State's theory of Brown's motive for this offense, which was Brown's desire to silence the seventeen-year-old victim, with whom he had had a sexual relationship. [12] Although Chalu did not succeed in preventing a first-degree murder conviction, he did succeed in preventing even more prejudicial evidence from reaching the jury. On this record, we conclude that Brown has failed to establish a reasonable probability that, absent the claimed errors, the jury would have found him not guilty of first-degree murder. Competent, substantial evidence supports the circuit court's factual findings. Thus, we do not disturb those findings. Based on our review of the record, we agree with the circuit court that Brown failed to demonstrate the required prejudice.