Opinion ID: 2323099
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Motions and Opinion on Remand

Text: The postconviction judge denied Swan's motions for postconviction relief and a new trial. [14] Swan appealed, and after oral argument, we concluded that a remand was required. We directed the postconviction judge to analyze Swan's claim that his counsel was ineffective in failing to conduct an adequate mitigation investigation in light of the United States Supreme Court's recent decisions in Williams v. Taylor, [15] Wiggins v. Smith, [16] Rompilla v. Beard, [17] Porter v. McCollum, [18] and Sears v. Upton, [19] and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's recent decisions in Jermyn v. Horn [20] and Outten v. Kearney. [21] We also directed the postconviction judge to specifically address whether Swan had demonstrated that defense counsel's failure to investigate and present certain mitigating evidence resulted in prejudice under Strickland v. Washington. [22] Thereafter, the postconviction judge issued an Opinion on Remand, [23] in which the postconviction judge first addressed and distinguished the cases cited in the remand order. [24] The postconviction judge concluded that Swan had not shown that defense counsel's performance was deficient. Second, the postconviction judge concluded that Swan had not shown prejudice, because there was not a substantial likelihood that the vote would have favored life imprisonment if the jury had been presented with the post-conviction evidence. [25] The postconviction judge recognized that he, as the trial judge, made the final determination and, [h]aving heard all of the evidence during the guilt and penalty phases of the trial and all of the post-conviction evidence ... the new evidence would not have altered [the court's] conclusion that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances and justified the imposition of the death penalty. [26]