Opinion ID: 799074
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Conceding various aggravating circumstances through guilty pleas.

Text: Stephens argues that counsel was ineffective for advising him to plead guilty to certain crimes that constituted aggravating circumstances. As discussed above, in Hill v. Lockhart , the Supreme Court held that when a defendant challenges his guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. 474 U.S. at 59, 106 S.Ct. 366. Stephens cannot meet this standard. As the Florida Supreme Court points out: Penalty phase counsel . . . testified that lead counsel's strategy was to gain credibility with the jury and that this strategy worked because entering guilty pleas on certain charges resulted in an acquittal of some of the charges for which Stephens pled not guilty. During the penalty phase, counsel even stated during his closing arguments that the fact that Stephens pled guilty to a number of charges should be seen as mitigation. In fact, in its sentencing order, the trial court found in mitigation that Stephens entered pleas to some counts of the indictment. Counsel is not deemed ineffective for using a strategy that benefited Stephens. Stephens fails to show that counsel was deficient under Strickland. Stephens II, 975 So.2d at 418 (internal citation omitted). We cannot find that the Florida Supreme Court's resolution of this claim was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.