Opinion ID: 1100544
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel During the Penalty Phase

Text: In his next issue on appeal, Philmore asserts that the trial court erred in rejecting his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present Dr. Maher to explain the presence of organic brain damage in support of the statutory mitigator that Philmore suffered from extreme mental or emotional disturbance. This Court has recognized that the obligation to investigate and prepare for the penalty portion of a capital case cannot be overstated. State v. Lewis, 838 So.2d 1102, 1113 (Fla.2002). [A]n attorney has a strict duty to conduct a reasonable investigation of a defendant's background for possible mitigating evidence. Ragsdale v. State, 798 So.2d 713, 716 (Fla.2001) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Riechmann, 777 So.2d 342, 350 (Fla.2000)); see also Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 522-23, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) ([The] principal concern in deciding whether [counsel] exercised `reasonable professional judgmen[t]' is not whether counsel should have presented a mitigation case. Rather, [the] focus [is] on whether the investigation supporting counsel's decision not to introduce mitigating evidence. . . was itself reasonable. ). However, when evaluating claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence, the defendant has the burden of showing that counsel's ineffectiveness deprived the defendant of a reliable penalty phase proceeding. Rutherford v. State, 727 So.2d 216, 223 (Fla.1998). In denying this claim, the trial court ruled that Philmore failed to overcome the presumption that his attorney's actions under the circumstances were sound strategy and failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced. In reaching this conclusion, the trial court found that Dr. Maher's opinions were inconsistent with the trial testimony of defense experts Dr. Wood and Dr. Berland. Specifically, the trial court found that Dr. Maher's opinion that Philmore's organic brain injury was in the frontal lobe was inconsistent with Dr. Wood's testimony at trial that the area of the abnormality was to the back left side of Philmore's brain. The trial court also found that Dr. Maher's testimony that he did not believe that Philmore was under the substantial domination of another would have undermined Dr. Berland's testimony that Philmore was under the substantial domination of codefendant Spann. Philmore asserts that because Dr. Berland's conclusions had already been impeached by the State, the prospect of conflicting expert testimony by Drs. Berland and Maher on the substantial domination mitigator did not justify the decision not to call Dr. Maher. Even if Dr. Maher would have been more successful at establishing statutory mitigation than Dr. Berland, the standard for assessing ineffective assistance claims is not how present counsel would have proceeded, in hindsight, but rather whether the defendant has established both deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland. Brown v. State, 846 So.2d 1114, 1121 (Fla.2003) (quoting Cherry v. State, 659 So.2d 1069, 1073 (Fla.1995)). Moreover, Philmore's presentation of a conflicting expert opinion would have further undermined the defense's credibility. Trial counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for not presenting. . . conflicting opinions. Jones v. State, 855 So.2d 611, 618 (Fla.2003). Philmore also asserts that the trial court's finding that Garland made a tactical decision not to call Dr. Maher is not supported by the record. Garland testified that he decided not to call Dr. Maher at trial after reviewing Dr. Maher's report and deposition and speaking to Dr. Maher several times. Although Garland did not explain with specificity his reasons for not utilizing Dr. Maher, Garland clearly considered this alternative and rejected it. We conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that Philmore failed to establish that Garland's decision not to call Dr. Maher to testify was deficient performance. Even if Garland's decision not to call Dr. Maher to testify could be considered deficient performance, this failure did not deprive[] the defendant of a reliable penalty phase proceeding. Rutherford, 727 So.2d at 223. Garland presented two experts and several lay witnesses to establish mitigation. Our confidence in the outcome of the penalty phase is not undermined by the absence of Dr. Maher's testimony even though the State had some success impeaching Dr. Berland's testimony. Further, given the impeachment of Dr. Berland and Dr. Wood, it is likely that the State would also have had some success in contradicting Dr. Maher's conclusions. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of this claim for relief.