Opinion ID: 1795830
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Deficiency Prong

Text: We agree with Sochor that his counsel's penalty-phase performance was deficient. Our review of the penalty-phase transcript and the evidentiary-hearing testimony reveals that Sochor's counsel put little time or effort into preparing expressly for the penalty phase. [9] The only witnesses counsel presented at the penalty phase were four members of Sochor's family. One of these witnesses, a sister, was not even contacted by counsel. She learned about the penalty phase from another relative and traveled to Florida on her own. When she arrived, she told counsel that she wanted to testify; counsel quickly glanced at a statement she had prepared and told her she could read it to the jury. The other three witnesses received no more preparation from counsel. Counsel simply asked them to prepare statements to read to the jury. In addition to these lay witnesses, counsel introduced the reports of three mental health experts who testified during the guilt phase. However, counsel did not provide these experts with any information about Sochor's background, nor did he specifically instruct them to examine and evaluate Sochor for the purpose of establishing mitigating evidence. Based on these undisputed facts, counsel's performance was clearly deficient, and the circuit court's holding to the contrary was erroneous. See State v. Lewis, 838 So.2d 1102, 1113 (Fla.2002) ([T]he obligation to investigate and prepare for the penalty portion of a capital case cannot be overstated  this is an integral part of a capital case.); Rose v. State, 675 So.2d 567, 571 (Fla.1996) (An attorney has a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation, including an investigation of the defendant's background, for possible mitigating evidence.) (quoting Porter v. Singletary, 14 F.3d 554, 557 (11th Cir. 1994)).