Opinion ID: 1133920
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The Statutory Age Mitigator

Text: Hertz asserts that his attorney failed to properly present the statutory age mitigator because counsel did not emphasize that the mitigator is intended to encompass both emotional and mental age as well as chronological age. Dr. Mosman testified that Hertz had a mental age of fourteen. Hertz asserts that the State did not contest Dr. Mosman's opinion on this point and instead attempted to discredit him by directing the Court to another recent capital case in which Dr. Mosman opined in postconviction proceedings that the defendant's mental age was also fourteen. The trial court found Dr. Mosman's testimony with regard to the mental age of the defendant to be unpersuasive and concluded that there was no evidence in the record which would lend weight to the notion that any mental age mitigator was applicable. A statutory age mitigator was found by the trial court and given only moderate weight in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime. Rand testified at the evidentiary hearing that Dr. Mosman's testimony in postconviction was the first he had heard of Hertz having a mental age of fourteen. This Court has stated that trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to pursue every possible defense based on a particular mental condition. Jackson v. Dugger, 547 So.2d 1197, 1200 (Fla.1989). Additionally, this Court has stated that [c]ounsel cannot be deemed ineffective . . . simply because he relied on what might have been less than complete pretrial psychiatric evaluations. State v. Sireci, 502 So.2d 1221, 1223 (Fla.1987). Even if Dr. Mosman's conclusion as to the mental age of Hertz was correct, Rand would not have been ineffective for relying on the expert evaluation by Dr. D'Errico, who did not make such a finding. Defense counsel was unaware of any theory that the defendant's possible mental age was fourteen, and the trial court found Dr. Mosman's testimony on this point not to be credible. Therefore, in our view, Rand was not ineffective for failing to present this mitigator, and our confidence in the proceedings below is not undermined by Rand's failure to present this issue at the penalty phase.