Opinion ID: 1611770
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mental Health Examination Claims

Text: Cole's third, fourth, and fifth claims all relate to trial counsel's alleged failure to secure an adequate mental health examination for Cole. The claims raised in Cole's initial brief in this appeal generally allege that trial counsel failed to provide adequate information to Dr. Berland, and for that reason, Dr. Berland could not competently diagnose the extent of Cole's brain damage; that trial counsel did not hire Dr. David M. Bortnick, a neuropsychologist, soon enough for trial preparation; that Dr. Bortnick spent too little time on Cole's case to do an adequate examination; and that the trial court erred in accepting at the rule 3.850 evidentiary hearing only a proffer from another neuropsychologist, Dr. Henry Dee. It must be noted that these claims differ materially from the claims presented in the rule 3.850 motion. In his rule 3.850 motion, Cole alleged: 6. Counsel hired Dr. Berland to examine Mr. Cole for mental illness. Though the results of Dr. Berland's tests were somewhat muddled because Mr. Cole was not answering the questions honestly, the results indicated at least some mental illness and definite brain damage. Counsel should have known further inquiry into brain damage was necessary because Dr. Berland testified at trial, I can tell you from this MMPI that the problem appears to exist in spite of his efforts to fake his problems. But I cannot tell you how serious a disturbance it is. It's there, but I have no way of telling you whether it's a very severe problem or a mild problem. Dr. Berland made other references to the fact that Mr. Cole had brain damage. Counsel should have known Dr. Berland was not qualified to investigate and establish the extent and effects of the brain damage because he is a forensic psychologist and not a neuropsychologist, and counsel should have hired a neuropsychologist trained to determine organic brain injury. 7. Only a neuropsychologist can administer the tests which provide objective results establishing brain damage. Trial counsel was ineffective for not hiring a neuropsychologist to examine Mr. Cole. To fully investigate the brain damage and act as effective counsel, counsel was obligated to hire an expert or have tests performed which could determine the extent of damage and explore its effects as mitigation. This was especially true in Mr. Cole's case because Dr. Berland's results were questionable and subject to challenge due to Mr. Cole's possible malingering. (Emphasis added and record citations omitted.) Following the evidentiary hearing, the trial court ruled: Defendant alleges that counsel was ineffective for failing to hire a neuropsychologist to determine the extent of Defendant's brain damage and to present evidence of said brain damage. Defendant alleges prejudice because, if counsel had hired a neuropsychologist, Defendant could have presented sufficient mitigating evidence to result in a life sentence. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at hearing, the Court finds the following facts in relation to this claim: 1. Dr. Berland, a forensic psychologist, was hired by Defendant's trial counsel and testified extensively during the sentencing hearing in this cause. Dr. Berland testified that Defendant had a mental illness and probably had some indeterminate brain damage. 2. This Court found that Defendant suffered from organic brain damage and mental illness and accorded this mitigating factor slight to moderate weight in its written order in support of the death sentence. 3. Defendant's trial counsel hired a neuropsychologist, Dr. Bortnik [sic], as a confidential defense expert. Dr. Bortnik informed Defendant's trial counsel that Defendant was neurologically sound. 4. Defendant's trial counsel reasonably relied upon Dr. Bortnik's opinion. Defendant's trial counsel made a tactical decision not to request a written opinion from Dr. Bortnik-a written opinion which would not be beneficial to his client. Therefore, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel's performance was deficient as it relates to this issue. Accordingly, he has failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Cole, No. 94-498-CF, order at 6 (Fla. 5th Cir. Ct. order filed May 24, 2000). The record reveals that Dr. Berland, a board certified forensic psychologist, was Cole's main mental health expert. Trial counsel hired Dr. Bortnick, a neuropsychologist, to evaluate Cole for possible brain damage after Dr. Berland advised that he could not determine the extent of Cole's brain damage on account of Cole's lack of candor and evasiveness during Dr. Berland's interviews of Cole. Dr. Berland also performed those tests, clinical interviews, and reviews previously detailed. Dr. Berland explored various issues such as head injuries, fetal alcohol syndrome, and other events which could have caused brain damage. Documentation provided at the evidentiary hearing established that trial counsel provided Dr. Berland with 44.52 pounds of documentary materials. With respect to Cole's claim in the rule 3.850 motion alleging a failure to hire a neuropsychologist, we find that there is competent, substantial evidence supporting the trial court's finding that trial counsel did indeed hire Dr. Bortnick, a neuropsychologist. It is correct that trial counsel thereafter made a tactical decision not to call Dr. Bortnick. But we find no error in the denial of relief as to this claim in view of the claim presented to the trial court and the record. Cole next argues that he did not receive effective mental health assistance as required by Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985). This claim was not presented in this form to the trial judge; however, on the basis of the record, we conclude there is no basis for relief under Ake. Cole then asserts that the trial court denied him a full evidentiary hearing by limiting Dr. Dee's testimony to a proffer. The transcript of the evidentiary hearing is explanatory of what occurred. MR. KILEY (CCRC):.... I think the Court now needs to address the issue of whether or not we can call Dr. Berland and Dr. Dee. . . . . Your Honor, I would submit to this Court, respectfully, that Dr. Berland, this Court probably could rely on what he testified at trial. . . . . But I think we should be allowed to at least proffer the testimony of Dr. Dee . . . . And I think we need to be able to proffer evidence to this Court that Dr. Dee did perform certain tests on Mr. Cole and his findings. . . . . I do think it is more important for us to call Dr. Dee to proffer his testimony. . . . . MR. McCUNE (Assistant State Attorney):.... ... [T]he issue as pled and which was made subject to the Court's order pertaining to the scope of this hearing today was effectiveness of trial counsel and failing to hire a neuropsychologist. . . . . .... Mr. Gleason [Cole's trial counsel], clearly hired a neuropsychologist and relied on that neuropsychologist to do whatever neuropsychologists do. And now Mr. Kiley is trying to make the issue become the adequacy of the neuropsychologist.... . . . . MR. KILEY:.... . . . . Now, with regards to Dr. Dee, Judge, they knew this was coming. We listed Dr. Dee.... .... I think we should be at least allowed to proffer the testimony of Dr. Dee.... . . . . MR. McCUNE: If they want to proffer, they can proffer, Your Honor, but I can't cross-examine. We haven't taken a deposition, we haven't seen any records from Dr. Dee reflecting what he's done in the case. THE COURT: Is he in the courthouse? MR. KILEY: He's in the courthouse, Judge.... THE COURT: You can proffer it. But here is a man who wasn't evenan expert who wasn't even called to the trial. Mr. Gleason explains what his actions were on getting a neuropsychologist or neuropsychiatrist to help him, and he had made the decision that he wasn't going to at that time. (Emphasis added.) At the close of all the evidence at the evidentiary hearing, Cole's counsel was allowed to argue from Dr. Dee's testimony even though it was only proffered. In light of trial counsel requesting an opportunity to proffer this evidence, we cannot find that the trial court erred in allowing what counsel requested. Moreover, because Dr. Dee's testimony is in the record, the procedure used resulted in no prejudice to Cole.