Opinion ID: 1589788
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to timely investigate Goff's potential mental health claims and inaccurate information provided to the trial court

Text: ¶ 122. According to Goff, his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance when they failed to have him evaluated until after the time to assert an insanity defense had passed and by providing incorrect information to the trial court. ¶ 123. On January 25, 2005, Goff's attorneys filed a motion for a court-ordered mental examination of the defendant because of the horrific nature of the crime. At the conclusion of a hearing on April 7, 2005, where Goff testified, defense counsel made clear that he was withdrawing the previous request for a mental evaluation for the purposes of determining whether Goff was competent to stand trial; rather, the evaluation was requested only for mitigation purposes. ¶ 124. At a second pretrial hearing on April 25, 2005, counsel further explained that he was no longer requesting a mental evaluation for the defendant. Counsel stated that, between the filing of the motion for the mental evaluation on January 21, 2005, and the hearing on April 7, 2005, he could find no independent background of Mr. Goff where he would have had any psychiatric care or psychologist care or any indication that he would not be competent to stand trial or that he was legally insane at the time of the offense. ¶ 125. We find that counsel was not deficient, in that he was intimately familiar with Goff, his family, and his background, he had conducted his own investigation, and after consultation with Goff, he withdrew his request for a mental evaluation as originally filed and asked that an evaluation be conducted for purposes of securing mitigation evidence. Furthermore, even if it could be said that Goff's counsel was deficient based on the failure to investigate, Goff has failed to demonstrate that counsel's actions prejudiced him. Despite Goff's contentions, the record indicates that counsel used the results of the examination for the purpose he intended  as evidence of mitigating circumstances at the sentencing phase. As the jury did in fact consider such evidence, this assignment of error is without merit.