Opinion ID: 3043542
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Mitigation Case

Text: In Claims F.4, F.14, and F.30, Hamm argued that he was entitled to habeas relief because his trial counsel failed to adequately investigate and present a mitigation case during the penalty phase of his trial. Id. at . Hamm argues that by relying on the testimony of only two witnesses, counsel failed to uncover and present “a wealth of documents” and testimonial evidence concerning the criminal histories of Hamm’s family members, Hamm’s school records, Hamm’s history of substance abuse, and Hamm’s medical and mental-health records. Id. at -56. Hamm also asserts that it was improper for his counsel to introduce certain mitigation evidence through his sister’s “bald assertions” that “sounded like a bunch of lies” without any “corroborating” documentary evidence. Although Hamm presented his mitigation-related ineffective-assistance argument as three separate claims, the district court evaluated them together. See id. at . Because the Alabama state courts had considered these claims on their 15 Case: 13-14376 Date Filed: 08/03/2015 Page: 16 of 72 merits, Hamm Collateral Appeal, 913 So. 2d at 478-79, 486-88, the district court limited its § 2254 analysis to a deferential review of the evidence before the state courts. Hamm § 2254 Order, 2013 WL 1282129 at -57. The ACCA had concluded that Hamm’s trial counsel competently investigated and presented a mitigation case. See Hamm Collateral Appeal, 913 So. 2d at 486-88. In reviewing this finding, the district court determined that the Alabama state courts had reasonably applied the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standards articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984), and that the cases cited by Hamm to support his inadequacy argument were all distinguishable. Hamm § 2254 Order, 2013 WL 1282129 at -65.