Opinion ID: 1100544
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trial Court's Failure to Consider Expert Testimony

Text: In Philmore's first claim for habeas relief, he argues that the trial court erred in failing to consider Dr. Wood's testimony in support of the mitigating factor that Philmore suffered from an extreme mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the offense. A trial court's rejection of mitigating circumstances is an issue that is properly raised on direct appeal. Cf. White v. State, 729 So.2d 909, 911 n. 4 (Fla.1999) (concluding that the postconviction court properly rejected as procedurally barred the claim that the trial court applied an improper standard in rejecting mental health mitigation). In fact, Philmore argued on direct appeal that the trial court erred in rejecting the statutory mitigator that Philmore suffered from an extreme mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the murder. This Court concluded that the trial court's rejection of this mitigating circumstance was supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Philmore, 820 So.2d at 937. Philmore's claim that the trial court erred in failing to consider Dr. Wood's testimony in support of this mitigation is procedurally barred. Cf. Griffin v. State, 866 So.2d 1, 18 (Fla.2003) (concluding that the defendant's claim that the trial court's sentencing order failed to consider and weigh unrefuted mitigating evidence presented at trial was procedurally barred because it could have been raised on direct appeal); Cherry v. Moore, 829 So.2d 873, 876 (Fla. 2002) (concluding that defendant's claim that the trial court did not consider a psychiatric report in evaluating mitigation was procedurally barred because it was raised on direct appeal). To the extent that Philmore attempts to raise this issue as an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim, we deny relief. Philmore's assertion that appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing that the trial court erred in failing to consider Dr. Wood's testimony in relation to this mitigation is merely an additional argument in support of the claim previously raised on direct appeal. We addressed in detail Philmore's claim that the trial court erred in rejecting the statutory mitigator that Philmore suffered from an extreme mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the murder, and noted the trial court's thorough consideration of the issue. Philmore, 820 So.2d at 937. Accordingly, we conclude that Philmore's ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim is without merit.