Opinion ID: 1912344
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: social worker

Text: In claim (3)(e), Gudinas alleges that trial counsel was also ineffective during his penalty phase for failing to hire a social worker in addition to the mitigation experts that were retained. Gudinas called clinical social worker Jan Vogelsang to testify at the 3.850 hearing. The trial court reviewed trial counsel's testimony and Ms. Vogelsang's testimony in its denial of this claim, stating: Mr. Irwin testified at the evidentiary hearing that he did not hire a social worker because he did not see where they [sic] could be of any help, and because as a matter of strategy he did not want to present all of the Defendant's placement history and background. Mr. LeBlanc testified that in light of his experience he would hire a social worker in the same circumstance today. ... Ms. Vogelsang did not present any information or opinion which differed from that already presented at the earlier proceedings. The record is undisputed that counsel did hire and consult with mental health experts for the purpose of determining the effect of Gudinas's social history on his life and this case. Counsel cannot be found ineffective for failing to provide cumulative evidence. See Card v. State, 497 So.2d 1169, 1175 (Fla.1986). Additionally, the decision to hire a social worker appears to be second-guessing by current counsel, rather than identification of a defect in trial counsel's strategy. The Strickland Court acknowledged, Even the best criminal defense attorneys would not defend a particular client in the same way. 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Further, this Court has stated, The standard is not how present counsel would have proceeded, in hindsight, but rather whether there was both a deficient performance and a reasonable probability of a different result. Cherry v. State, 659 So.2d 1069, 1073 (Fla.1995). The trial court also determined that even if trial counsel was ineffective for not hiring a social worker for the penalty phase, Gudinas has not demonstrated prejudice in view of the mental health and other mitigating evidence actually presented. As the trial court stated, The testimony of Ms. Vogelsang would have been cumulative ... and her testimony at the evidentiary hearing did not establish what further input she could have provided. We again find no error in the trial court's conclusion that Gudinas has not shown, in view of the expert testimony that was offered, how having a social worker at his trial in addition to the evidence that was presented would have provided a reasonable probability, sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome, that the proceeding would have been different. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052.