Opinion ID: 2519733
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Petitioner's curtailment of penalty phase investigation and presentation

Text: Petitioner disputes the referee's finding that he did not want his family involved. He claims he asked only that his mother not be called as a witness and placed no restrictions whatsoever on the use of other family members. In support of his exception, he cites statements by Lenoir and Miller to the trial court that they were honoring petitioner's request not to call his mother to testify, without any mention of other relatives. In declarations provided to petitioner's habeas corpus counsel, Lenoir and Miller both stated only that petitioner had not wanted his mother involved and that they had been unable to find any evidence of good character and good deeds; they said nothing about petitioner's desire not to have any others in his family contacted. Even if his attorneys made little effort to discuss with petitioner the possibility of calling family members other than his mother, the referee credited Miller's testimony that petitioner objected not only to his mother's involvement, but also to that of any relatives. Giving the referee's credibility determination the great weight to which it is entitled ( In re Johnson (1998) 18 Cal.4th 447, 461, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 957 P.2d 299), we adopt the referee's finding that Miller accurately described petitioner's objection to having family members present mitigating evidence.