Opinion ID: 1561583
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Adequately Investigate Mental Health Mitigation

Text: In this claim, Smithers argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in investigating available mitigation evidence. Smithers asserts that trial counsel unreasonably failed to provide the defense's mental health expert, Michael Scott Maher, M.D., with an investigative report documenting Smithers' claim that Dean Snyder, Smithers' neighbor, was present when a man in a Bentley approached Smithers. [3] He further asserts that counsel unreasonably failed to interview Dean Snyder and to provide Dr. Maher with the results of the Snyder interview. Smithers explains that Snyder's statement that he never saw the man in the Bentley was evidence of a hallucination by Smithers. The postconviction court denied this claim, concluding that trial counsel's performance was adequate because he presented two expert witnesses about Smithers' possible psychosis and additional testimony to establish mitigating factors. The postconviction court explained that changed opinions do not establish ineffective assistance of counsel. After reviewing the postconviction record and the trial record, we conclude that Smithers has failed to demonstrate prejudice. The postconviction court, therefore, did not err in denying relief on this claim. During the penalty phase, Dr. Maher diagnosed Smithers as suffering from a dissociative disorder not otherwise specified. Dr. Maher explained that while Smithers was out of touch with reality in significant aspects of his beliefs and his ideas, he found insufficient information to diagnose psychosis. He stated, I can't say he was not psychotic during some of these dissociative episodes but I'm not going to make the diagnosis simply out of uncertainty or in spite of some testing that shows he might be psychotic. Later, Dr. Maher again clarified, I think he might have psychoticI'm not saying he doesn't but it is not part of my diagnosis that there are psychotic episodes. He opined that both statutory mental health mitigating factors, extreme mental or emotional disturbance and substantially impaired capacity, were applicable to the murders and described each murder as an impulsive action taken by a man who was in the midst of a dissociative episode. During cross-examination, Dr. Maher agreed that dissociative disorder with possible psychotic features would be an accurate description of the diagnosis. At the postconviction evidentiary hearing, Dr. Maher testified that after reviewing the investigative report and learning that Snyder would testify that he never saw a man in a Bentley approach Smithers, Dr. Maher revised his diagnosis to [p]sychotic episode recurrent. Dr. Maher testified that Smithers' insistence about the Bentley incident and Snyder's lack of corroboration was a pretty strong suggestion of psychosis or a drug-induced delirium or some other very substantial disturbance or perception and reality. He explained that at the time of trial, he was close to diagnosing Smithers with psychosis and that an incident such as this which is clear and definite would in my judgment have led me to conclude that he was psychotic previously. Dr. Maher's revised diagnosis is largely cumulative to the opinion offered by Dr. Robert Berland, who testified as an expert in forensic psychology during the penalty phase. Dr. Berland diagnosed Smithers as having a chronic mental illness, a chronic psychotic condition, at least in part a by-product of brain injury. Dr. Berland testified that Smithers' ex-wife told him about Smithers doing things which are associated with auditory and tactical hallucinations. He opined that at the time of the murders, Smithers was suffering from an extreme mental or emotional disturbance as a result of a chronic psychotic disturbance effecting [sic] his judgment and behavior and that while Smithers' ability to appreciate the criminality of his conduct was not substantially impaired, his ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired. Dr. Berland further opined that at the time of the murders, Smithers had an ongoing problem . . . involving a series of delusions and hallucinations and mood disturbance and a panoramic distortion in his judgment and perceptions. In light of the evidence presented at trial and the sentencing court's findings, we conclude that Dr. Maher's revised opinion does not undermine confidence in the death sentences. After considering the testimony of Dr. Maher, Dr. Berland, Dr. Wood (who testified about a PET scan and an MRI examination of Smithers), and the State's mental health experts, Dr. Donald Taylor and Dr. Barbara Stein, the sentencing court concluded that the mitigating factor of extreme mental or emotional disturbance was proven and was entitled to moderate weight. The sentencing court also concluded that the mitigating factor of substantially impaired capacity was proven and entitled to moderate weight. Despite finding these mitigating factors, the sentencing court agree[d] with the unanimous jury that in weighing the aggravating circumstances against the mitigating circumstances, the scale tilts unquestionably to a sentence of death. There is no reasonable probability that the sentencing court would have given significantly more weight to the statutory mental health mitigating factors had Dr. Maher diagnosed Smithers as suffering from psychotic episode recurrent, rather than dissociative disorder with possible psychotic features. While the sentencing court was not aware of the possible hallucination about the man in the Bentley, the sentencing court was aware of Smithers' mental illness and considered how that illness impacted his actions at the time of the murders. When considered in context, the change in Dr. Maher's diagnosis simply does not rise to the level of undiscovered mitigation previously found to require a new penalty phase. See, e.g., Hildwin v. Dugger, 654 So.2d 107, 110 (Fla.1995) (holding defendant prejudiced where trial counsel presented only lay witnesses and failed to present evidence of defendant's psychiatric hospitalizations and suicide attempts); Phillips v. State, 608 So.2d 778, 782-83 (Fla.1992) (holding defendant prejudiced where trial counsel admitted doing virtually no preparation for penalty phase and failed to present evidence of borderline mental retardation, schizoid personality, head injury, and lifelong deficits in adaptive functioning).