Opinion ID: 1466528
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Post-Conviction Proceeding and Appeal

Text: Vaca brought a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief attacking trial counsel's effectiveness during the sentence and guilt phase. Defense counsel and Dr. Geis were the only witnesses at the proceeding. Dr. Geis testified during the Rule 29.15 proceeding that he was available during the sentencing phase to testify and that he would have been able to expand on his report and Vaca's history of mental illness. Defense counsel also testified during the Rule 29.15 proceeding. Counsel stated that the State's evidence was substantial, that Vaca's conviction was likely, and that he knew that this case would probably be going to the sentencing phase. The following exchange between post-conviction counsel and defense counsel then occurred: Q. Okay. Before trial did you give any consideration to calling Dr. Geis as a witness in the sentencing phase? A. In the sentencing phase, no. Q. Okay. Now ... did the idea to call Dr. Geis at sentencing not even occur to you or did you rule it out for some strategic reason? A. There was no strategic reason that I can recall for not calling Dr. Geis at sentencing. The trial court overruled Vaca's motion for post-conviction relief. Vaca relies on two points on appeal. First, during the guilt phase, defense counsel was ineffective for eliciting evidence of the fourth uncharged robbery. Second, during the sentencing phase, defense counsel was ineffective for giving no consideration to calling Dr. Geis to testify or to entering his report into evidence.