Opinion ID: 1704647
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: ineffectiveness as to ccp aggravator

Text: In Davis's final claim, he argues that Terrana was ineffective for failing to rebut the CCP aggravator and establish the substantially diminished capacity mitigator. [10] As in the prior claims, the standard for ineffective assistance is an analysis of deficiency and prejudice under Strickland. The postconviction court denied this claim, quoting at length from Terrana's testimony at the evidentiary hearing. In that testimony, Terrana explained that he did not have Dr. Gamache rebut the CCP aggravator because Dr. Gamache had been deposed the night before trial. Terrana stated that Dr. Gamache gave at least 20 to 30 pages of [deposition testimony] which [we]re some of the most bone-chilling testimony from [Davis] to [Dr. Gamache] that you've ever heard. Postconviction Order at 31. Terrana was thus concerned that putting Dr. Gamache on the stand to testify to the CCP aggravator would have allowed the prosecutors to cross-examine Dr. Gamache on those thirty pages of negative testimony. Terrana believed that [i]f that would have happened, there's no doubt in my mind ... that the vote would have been 12-0 for death. And you may even [have] had the alternate[s] upset that they couldn't cast a vote for death. Id. Based on Terrana's testimony, the postconviction court concluded that Terrana's decision was strategic. Competent, substantial evidence supports this finding. Several of Davis's statements to Dr. Gamache were revealed in Dr. Gamache's deposition, and many of these statements were potentially harmful to Davis's case. For example, Davis told Dr. Gamache that he choked Ms. Robinson into unconsciousness after Davis got angry when she said something negative about his father. Davis also told Dr. Gamache that he thought Valessa was joking when she proposed killing her mother but that Davis cooperated with Valessa's proposal because he thought that they would buy the heroin and then back out before using it on Ms. Robinson. He believed that he could then use the heroin for himself. Terrana reasonably did not want the State to elicit this testimony from Dr. Gamache on the stand. Such testimony would further cement Davis's role in the murder in the mind of the jurors and would portray Davis as manipulative. Davis's ability to ascertain that Valessa was not serious and his ability to formulate a plan to play along in order to acquire heroin for his own use would also undercut any argument that Davis was impaired cognitively. Trial counsel will not be held to be deficient when she makes a reasonable strategic decision to not present mental mitigation testimony during the penalty phase because it could open the door to other damaging testimony. Gaskin v. State, 822 So.2d 1243, 1248 (Fla.2002). Thus, we agree with the postconviction court that Terrana's performance was not deficient. Finally, Davis has not demonstrated that Dr. Smith's testimony would have helped his case. Dr. Smith testified that he believed LSD use would preclude a finding that the CCP aggravator applied, but Dr. Smith expressly declined to state whether LSD prevented premeditation. Dr. Smith also testified that LSD use would not prevent an individual from planning things or forming intent to act. Dr. Smith also could not explain what perceptual or emotional distortions Davis suffered from that foreclosed application of the CCP aggravator. These facts undercut the strength of his testimony that CCP did not apply. For all of these reasons, we conclude that Davis has not established prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm the postconviction court's denial of this final claim.