Opinion ID: 1737862
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Discussion of Guilt Phase Ineffective-Assistance Claims

Text: 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.