Opinion ID: 78474
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Counsel's Strategy

Text: Before assessing Rhode's ineffective assistance claims, we must determine the strategy actually pursued by counsel. Blankenship v. Hall, 542 F.3d 1253, 1273 (11th Cir.2008). Rhode asserts that counsel decided from the beginning that this was a mitigation-only case. The state habeas court found, however, that counsel thought that the penalty phase strategy would involve both mitigation and residual doubt. Ex. 80 at 8. The state habeas court's finding is not unreasonable. Counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing that the defense believed that the jury, while deliberating during the guilt phase, was grappling with residual doubt on some portions of the case, and that [its residual doubt] would carry over to the penalty phase. Ex. 59 at 3106. Counsel's trial tactics confirm that belief. Counsel conceded that Rhode was at the crime scene, but counsel otherwise fought everything in that case. Ex. 59 at 3063. During the guilt phase, counsel tried to show that Rhode's co-defendant Lucas murdered the three victims while Rhode fired only one shot after Rhode turned his head and closed his eyes. Ex. 12 at 2009. Rhode's penalty phase testimony supported the defense's account of the murders and may have addressed any residual doubt among the jurors. In addition to providing mitigating testimony about his childhood, Rhode testified that it was Lucas' idea to go to the Moss home on the day of the murders, that he remembered freezing up when the shooting started, and that he did not know where the one shot he fired went. Ex. 17 at 3997, 4010-21. During closing argument of the sentencing phase Rhode's attorney addressed the jury directly on the possibility of residual doubt. [3] Counsel's decision to f[i]ght everything belies Rhode's assertion that counsel knew that this was a mitigation-only case. Even if this were a mitigation-only case, we would still conclude that counsel's penalty phase investigation and presentation were not ineffective. We have explained that even when trial counsel's investigation is less complete than collateral counsel's, trial counsel has not performed deficiently when a reasonable lawyer could have decided, in the circumstances, not to investigate[] further. Housel v. Head, 238 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir.2001). We have also explained that counsel [is not] required to present all mitigation evidence, even if the additional mitigation evidence would not have been incompatible with counsel's strategy. Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1319 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc). As we explain further below, the state habeas court did not make an unreasonable determination of the facts or contravene clearly established U.S. Supreme Court precedent when it rejected Rhode's claim that counsel rendered ineffective penalty phase investigation and presentation.