Opinion ID: 1795830
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Circuit Court's Findings

Text: After the evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied relief. The court found that the lay testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing was either cumulative with respect to the penalty phase testimony or insignificant. As for Sochor's relatives who testified at both the penalty phase and the evidentiary hearing, the court found that they testified about the same facts at the evidentiary hearing as they did at the penalty phase. State v. Sochor, Case No. 86-15270CF10A (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. order filed Mar. 28, 2001) (Postconviction order) at 13. The court also found that the additional family-member testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing was cumulative and was presented at the penalty phase by other family members, and the additional lay testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing was cumulative and not significant. Id. at 13-14. With respect to the mental-health testimony, the circuit court gave great weight to Dr. Ceros-Livingston's testimony at the evidentiary hearing. For instance, the court stated: At the evidentiary hearing, Dr. Ceros-Livingston testified that, even after reviewing the new information provided by the Defendant's appellate counsel, her original opinions regarding the Defendant remained the same. In her opinion, the records presented to her did not indicate manic depression or organic brain damage. There was no indication that the Defendant's behavior changed whether he was on Lithium or not. Postconviction order at 8 (citations omitted). The court found that: Despite the fact that mitigation was not specifically discussed with Dr. Ceros-Livingston, the record indicates that the tests that she performed on Defendant allowed her to draw opinions in regards to his mental health, which were properly presented by defense counsel to the judge and jury during the penalty phase as mitigating factors. Furthermore, Dr. Ceros-Livingston testified at the evidentiary hearing that considering her previous evaluation in conjunction with the records and background material provided to her by the Defendant's appellate counsel in 1999, her diagnosis of the Defendant and testimony at the time of trial would have been the same. Dr. Ceros-Livingston testified at the evidentiary hearing that when the Defendant was evaluated in 1987, he did not have manic depressive disorder. Moreover, based upon the additional information provided to her in 1999, Dr. Ceros-Livingston did not think that the Defendant had bipolar disorder or organic brain damage at the time of the murder. Postconviction order at 9-10 (emphasis added); see also id. at 12 (Dr. Ceros-Livingston clearly stated that her opinion would remain the same after considering the additional records.).