Opinion ID: 1199801
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel as to Penalty

Text: (34) Defendant contends that defense counsel provided him with ineffective assistance as to penalty in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and/or article I, section 15 of the California Constitution. At the penalty phase, the prosecutor called only a few witnesses in the case in aggravation. For their part, defense counsel called more than a score in the case in mitigation, presenting, inter alia, evidence about defendant's background and character from the mouths of family members and friends and also from a psychologist and a psychiatrist. After the penalty phase, they made several motions, including the verdict-modification application. Defendant claims that defense counsel performed deficiently with regard to numerous cited acts and omissions and thereby subjected him to prejudice. In large part, he simply recasts arguments for reversal that we have expressly or impliedly disposed of in the course of the preceding analysis. He is indeed forceful in presenting his complaints. We have carefully considered each in its proper context. In few if any instances does he show professionally unreasonable conduct. In none does he show a reasonable probability of an adverse effect on the outcome. For example, defendant does not establish ineffective assistance in defense counsel's asserted failure to pursue neurological testing to determine whether and to what extent he suffered from an organic mental syndrome or disorder. He does not demonstrate that such testing would have yielded favorable results. Hence, he cannot demonstrate that its omission adversely affected the outcome within a reasonable probability. Neither does defendant establish ineffective assistance in defense counsel's asserted failure to further investigate his background and character and then to introduce additional evidence thereon. He does not demonstrate that such further investigatory efforts would have yielded favorable results. Hence, he cannot demonstrate that their omission adversely affected the outcome within a reasonable probability. Further, defendant does not establish ineffective assistance in defense counsel Peterson's decision not to personally prepare witnesses for their testimony: I ... make it a practice to not talk directly with witnesses but have that done by investigation  evidently to avoid suspicion of coaching. He does not demonstrate that personal preparation would have yielded favorable results. Hence, he cannot demonstrate that its omission adversely affected the outcome within a reasonable probability. In addition, defendant does not establish ineffective assistance in defense counsel Peterson's opening statement or summation. We have reviewed, among all the others, Peterson's comments in his opening statement and summation to the effect that a governor could, but would not, commute any sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole imposed on defendant. The remarks appear to be a reasonable attempt to anticipate and allay a possible concern on the part of the jurors. We have also reviewed Peterson's argument for life in his summation, the gravamen of which was that a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole was severe and sufficient punishment in this case. The plea, although not as positive as defendant now asserts it should have been, seems a reasonable effort in light of the evidence introduced as to the criminal and his crime. Finally, we have reviewed Peterson's comment in his summation that giving you the greatest latitude, it took you 15 minutes to reach a verdict at the guilt phase and [t]hat was an insult to [the trial judge], to the prosecutor, and to the defense attorney, but it is your verdict. The remark was indeed intemperate. But it was also brief. It did not deny defendant effective assistance. [32]