Opinion ID: 1853745
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Counsel's Failure to Investigate Forensic Evidence and Obtain Proper Forensic Experts

Text: Next, Pooler claims that the trial court erred in summarily denying his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate forensic evidence and for failing to obtain proper forensic experts. Pooler argues that he was prejudiced because a well-informed, independent medical expert could have opined that the victim died instantaneously and, thus, the heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC) aggravating factor would not have applied. The trial court summarily denied this claim as legally insufficient because Pooler failed to identify what evidence or expert opinion his trial counsel could have offered to show that the victim's death was instantaneous so as to refute the HAC finding. We affirm the trial court's conclusion. This claim is legally insufficient because Pooler fails to identify what evidence or expert opinion his trial counsel could have offered to show that the victim's death was instantaneous. Moreover, even if forensic evidence could have shown that the victim's death was instantaneous, we would not strike the HAC aggravator. As we held on direct appeal, the fear, emotional strain, and terror of the victim during the events leading up to the murder support the trial court's HAC finding, even where the victim's death was almost instantaneous. See Pooler, 704 So.2d at 1378.