Opinion ID: 1347679
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ineffectiveness Claims Addressed on the Merits

Text: We address the first three claims of ineffectiveness on the merits. They allege errors that were not addressed either directly or in substance on the first appeal and that, if factually correct, might have denied Gardner the fundamental fairness to which he was entitled in his trial, in the penalty hearing, or on his appeal from those proceedings. In addition, the record that was developed at trial and was before this Court on the first appeal did not provide a basis for deciding those issues. Where an issue going to the fundamental fairness of a trial involves nonrecord events, Rule 65B may be the only means whereby a defendant can obtain a fair adjudication of the issue. The issue of Brass's asserted ineffectiveness on the appeal could only be raised in a petition for post-conviction relief. In addition, the public defenders did not raise any issue as to their ineffectiveness on the direct appeal, and Brass argued that except for trial counsels' failure to object to certain testimony at the penalty phase, any ineffectiveness claim as to the public defenders was premature because there was not an adequate record. In the habeas hearing below, habeas counsel were allowed to present evidence with respect to Gardner's first three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. We turn now to the merits of the following three ineffective assistance claims: (1) trial counsels' not allowing Gardner's psychiatric expert adequate time to prepare for the penalty phase; (2) Ed Brass's alleged conflict of interest with Gardner arising from his representation of the woman accused of handling Gardner the gun at the courthouse, giving rise to Brass's not adequately representing Gardner on appeal; and (3) the conflict of interest trial counsel allegedly had because they were witnesses to Gardner's condition at the time of his arrest and because of the animosity that existed between Gardner and his attorneys.
The district court vacated Gardner's death sentence and granted him a new penalty hearing because defense counsel failed to provide Gardner's expert psychiatric witness sufficient time to examine Gardner prior to testifying at the penalty hearing. The court stated in its memorandum decision: Effective representation of the accused in a capital case remains that counsel challenged the State's aggravating evidence and present a cohesive and understandable theory of mitigation. Petitioner contends this was not done. Primarily, there was inadequate investigation relating to petitioner's mental health prior to trial. Whatever evidence was presented was inadequate  too little and too late. There is dispute regarding Dr. Peter Heinbecker's testimony. Was there sufficient time and sufficient medical or psychological evaluations for Dr. Heinbecker to adequately and completely testify on behalf of petitioner? The Court is of the opinion there was not. Dr. Heinbecker was contacted a mere 24 hours before he testified. During that time, he was only able to examine some of the record, interview Mr. Gardner for about one hour, and talk to his mother and brother for a total of 2.5 hours. Further, Dr. Heinbecker testified that, in a case of this significance, he would have expected more time to prepare his evaluation. The district court also observed that although defense counsel had arranged for psychiatrist Dr. Mark Rindflesh to evaluate Gardner in May 1985, counsel did not ask him to testify for Gardner. Gardner's attorneys also asked Dr. Agnes Plenk to evaluate Gardner and to testify for him, but she also declined. The court stated: No further effort was made to seek professional assistance for petitioner, nor seek state assistance in doing so. In addition, present counsel's efforts to secure expert testimony for petitioner's evaluation was opposed by the State and sustained by this Court. As a result, no satisfactory mental health evaluation of petitioner has ever been available to petitioner to present at any hearing. Petitioner contends the deprivation of adequate evaluations has prevented petitioner from presenting any evidence of possible organic brain damage or other mitigating information which further prevented presentation of a cohesive and understandable theory of mitigation. The Court agrees. The district court did not comment either on the testimony of Dr. Heinbecker at the penalty hearing or suggest any additional evidence that might have been presented had he had more time to prepare. The Court stated only that Dr. Heinbecker's preparation time was severely limited and that in the habeas proceeding, Dr. Heinbecker testified that in a case of this significance, he would have expected more time to prepare his evaluation. In fact, Dr. Heinbecker did not indicate that he might have produced any new evidence. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate first that counsel committed specific acts or omissions that fall outside the wide range of professionally competent counsel and, second, that a reasonable probability exists that but for counsel's error, the result would have been different. Gardner, 789 P.2d at 288; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Templin, 805 P.2d 182, 186 (Utah 1990). This requires a showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064; see also Templin, 805 P.2d at 186. In a death penalty case, when an ineffectiveness claim is made on a petition for post-conviction relief with respect to the penalty hearing, the petitioner must be able to show some possibility that but for the error, the sentences would have imposed a life sentence rather than death. This standard is necessitated by the extremely sensitive nature of the issue before the sentencer and the inexact and somewhat subjective nature of the considerations that must guide the sentencer. See State v. Wood, 648 P.2d 71, 77-82 (Utah 1981); see also State v. Holland, 876 P.2d 357, 359-61 (Utah 1994); State v. Holland, 777 P.2d 1019 (Utah 1989). Nevertheless, it was Gardner's burden, in the habeas proceeding, to adduce what favorable evidence could have been presented in his behalf if Dr. Heinbecker had been given more time to prepare. At the penalty hearing, Dr. Heinbecker presented evidence that Gardner suffered from organic brain damage and that, coupled with other mitigating circumstances, explained Gardner's antisocial behavior. Prior to the penalty hearing, Dr. Heinbecker interviewed Gardner for one hour, Gardner's mother for one hour, and Gardner's brother for one and a half hours. Dr. Heinbecker did not administer any psychological tests to Gardner, but he reviewed a number of psychological and medical records relating to Gardner's mental status from the Utah State Hospital and other institutions, beginning when Gardner was about two years old through 1980. A psychiatric report completed after the courthouse shooting in 1985 was also available to Dr. Heinbecker. Based on his own interviews and the psychological records he reviewed, Dr. Heinbecker testified that Gardner suffered from organic brain damage. Gardner had contracted meningitis at the age of four and had sniffed glue and gasoline from age nine until after age thirteen. Both meningitis and glue sniffing can cause brain damage. Psychological tests performed on Gardner at the Utah State Hospital in 1972, according to Dr. Heinbecker, suggested the possibility of some brain damage. Although Gardner's overall I.Q. was 88, which falls in the dull-normal range, he had comparatively high scores on parts of the test and low scores on other parts, which suggested a degree of organic brain damage. The test was administered by an evaluator from the Utah State Hospital, who concluded that his practical reasoning ability is in the average or above average range; whereas, his impaired ability to deal with and reproduce written symbols seriously hinders his chance to profit from the usual academic learning situation. In addition, Dr. Heinbecker explained Gardner's behavior in terms of three other facts. Dr. Heinbecker testified that Gardner grew up in an unstable and impoverished environment. Indeed, Gardner had been institutionalized for most of his life, beginning at age eight and continuing into adulthood, with the result that Gardner absorbed the moral values of others involved in antisocial criminal conduct. Dr. Heinbecker also testified that Gardner suffered from an antisocial personality disorder that might be explained genetically. Gardner's grandfather, brother, sister, nephew, three cousins, and two half-siblings had all been involved in juvenile court proceedings and/or spent time in prison. Finally, Dr. Heinbecker suggested that Gardner's problems stemmed from parental neglect and inadequate parenting. On cross-examination in the penalty hearing, the prosecutor did not challenge Dr. Heinbecker's opinions with respect to Gardner's institutional and family background or the personality disorder but confined his questions to the statements that Gardner suffered from organic brain damage. On redirect examination, defense counsel elicited the following information: Q. You indicated that the only way that you can find organic brain damage is to test. What test was that? A. Well, the Bender-Gestalt is one of the tests. There are a number of tests that could be used to learn about organic damage, and the Bender-Gestalt is certainly not the best one, but it is the only one that I could find that was used in these tests. The prosecution presented a psychological evaluation made by Dr. John Gill, a clinical psychologist, who stated, based at least in part on the results of a Bender-Gestalt test, that his findings are not indicative of blatant organic impairment. Dr. Heinbecker had not previously seen a copy of the report but testified, What this suggests to me is that he may have had some questions about it. Defense counsel then asked Dr. Heinbecker what Dr. Gill's statement meant, to which he replied, Well, you know, when he says it is not indicative of blatant organic impairment, it sounds to me like he is hedging his bets on whether there is organic impairment or not. In other words, he is saying, to me, more sophisticated testing ought to be done. In the evidentiary hearing in the Rule 65B proceeding, Gardner was given an opportunity to demonstrate exactly how the short preparation time given Dr. Heinbecker impaired his ability to present evidence favorable to Gardner. Dr. Heinbecker was asked if the four hours he spent interviewing Gardner and his family were enough for him to make a complete diagnosis. Dr. Heinbecker stated only that he would have expected to have more time in a case of this magnitude. He did not indicate that any more information could have been developed that would have favored Gardner if he had had more time to prepare. He did not testify that had he administered tests such as the Bender-Gestalt, the Halstead-Rectar, or the Lowery Nebraska, how such additional information would have affected any aspect of Dr. Heinbecker's assessment of Gardner's relevant judgment, reasoning, or behavior, even if they specified more precisely the degree of brain damage. Dr. Heinbecker stated only that it would have been helpful in formulating his diagnosis if Gardner had performed a psychological pen and paper test. Gardner's attorney then, by a leading question, suggested that if there had been more time, there are many things that you would have done that would have helped you in diagnosis. Dr. Heinbecker merely responded that he would have liked to have planned the evaluation more carefully. He proved no prospect of any other information of mitigating evidence. In light of Dr. Heinbecker's testimony, both at the penalty hearing and at the evidentiary hearing below, we do not believe that Gardner was prejudiced by the initial trial court's failure to give Dr. Heinbecker more time or by defense counsels' failure to provide more time to Dr. Heinbecker to prepare. In short, the district court erred in determining that Gardner was denied the effective assistance of counsel in the penalty phase.
Gardner argues that he did not have the effective assistance of counsel on the appeal from his conviction and sentence because attorney Ed Brass had a conflict of interest arising from his representation of Gardner and his earlier representation of Carma Hainsworth, the woman who handed Gardner the gun in the courthouse. In addition, Gardner asserts that Brass was ineffective because he did not independently review the trial record to ensure that all appealable issues were adequately addressed in the supplemental brief he filed in the first appeal and because LDA failed to completely withdraw as counsel when ordered to do so by this Court. The district court ruled (1) that Brass's representation of Carma Hainsworth did not create a conflict of interest with Brass's representation of Gardner on appeal, and (2) that Brass did not provide effective representation because he did not act as an independent counsel. When Gardner asserted his claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel to this Court on the first appeal just prior to oral argument, this Court appointed Brass to replace LDA as Gardner's appellate attorney. The trial court on the habeas petition found that although this Court directed Brass to brief all issues not previously addressed by LDA, he addressed only the single issue of ineffective assistance of counsel because Chief Justice Hall had informed him in a telephone conversation that the scope of his appointment was so limited. The district court also found that the LDA trial attorneys, after being discharged as counsel, prepared and filed supplemental petitions for rehearing that were signed by Brass. The trial court concluded that there was a question as to whether the issues raised on appeal were properly addressed by Brass. The trial court ordered a new appeal to this Court so that Gardner would have the opportunity to appeal all issues based on habeas counsel's own investigation and research. On this appeal, Gardner challenges the district court's ruling that Brass did not have a conflict of interest because of his representation of Hainsworth. Gardner also argues that the district court correctly ruled that Brass did not provide independent appellate representation for him and that a new appeal is therefore required. Gardner asserts that an actual conflict of interest existed and that he is not required to show prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2066, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Strickland imposed a presumption of prejudice when defense counsel labors under an actual conflict of interest, because an attorney's duty of loyalty is the most basic of counsel's duties. Id. at 692, 104 S.Ct. at 2067; State v. Holland, 876 P.2d 357, 359 (Utah 1994); State v. Brown, 853 P.2d 851, 857-58 (Utah 1992). Prejudice is presumed in the case of a conflict of interest if the defendant demonstrates that counsel `actively represented conflicting interests' and that `an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance.' Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692, 104 S.Ct. at 2067 (quoting Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 348-50, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 1718-19, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980)). Brass's prior representation of Hainsworth did not give rise to a conflict of interest. The charges against Hainsworth were resolved separately from the charges against Gardner, and by the time Brass was appointed to represent Gardner, the charges against Hainsworth were concluded, and a conflict, potential or otherwise, no longer existed between the two defendants. The district court correctly rejected Gardner's claim. With respect to Brass's effectiveness on appeal, the district court misapprehended the law and the facts. The evidence is that Gardner requested that LDA withdraw as appellate counsel only a few days before oral argument but after all briefing in the case had been completed. This Court's file confirms that LDA filed a motion to withdraw, accompanied by a motion to stay proceedings, three days before oral argument. That motion was argued immediately prior to the oral argument on the merits of the appeal, and the motion was denied. The Court did, however, allow Gardner to supplement the arguments of LDA with arguments of other counsel and to supplement within thirty days the LDA brief with matters not already addressed. Approximately one month after oral argument, Gardner filed a pro se motion to remove LDA as his counsel of record. That motion was granted, and this Court appointed Brass counsel for the purpose of assisting defendant in the filing of a supplemental brief which shall address only matters not previously addressed. Although the order appointing Brass allowed him to present any issue not already addressed, Brass confined his arguments to Gardner's ineffective assistance of counsel claims on the ground that Chief Justice Hall told him that was all he was required to do. The district court apparently believed that this resulted in the failure to raise some appealable issues. However, neither the district court nor Gardner on this appeal has pointed out any meritorious issues that could have been, but were not, raised on direct appeal by either LDA or Brass. The district court also relied on the fact that LDA prepared appellate papers subsequent to LDA's discharge. After this Court's opinion was handed down, an LDA attorney prepared a supplemental petition for rehearing and a supplemental reply to the State's response to the petition for rehearing that were signed and filed by Brass after he reviewed, approved, and signed the documents. Neither Gardner nor the district court suggests any deficiencies in those documents or refers to any issues that should have been raised. In short, habeas counsel has apprised us of no issues that should have been raised on the first appeal, and we are aware of none. Although we certainly do not condone either LDA's preparation of documents in connection with the petition for rehearing after LDA was discharged or Brass's signing them, no prejudice flowed therefrom.