Opinion ID: 2752716
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sentencing Counsel’s Performance

Text: Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), establishes a two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel claims: the defendant must first demonstrate that his counsel’s performance was deficient, and second, that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced him. Mertz points to Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 393 (2005), wherein the Supreme Court held that sentencing counsel’s performance was deficient because of a failure to investigate a similar prior offense, which the government used as aggravation evidence. The Rompilla court held that “[t]he prosecution was going to use the dramatic facts of a similar prior offense, and Rompilla’s counsel had a duty to make all reasonable efforts to learn what they could about the offense.” Id. at 385. Mertz argues that, like in Rompilla, the government in this case focused on the disturbing details of other offenses during sentencing, and that Mertz’s sentencing counsel had a responsibility to respond to such arguments. However Mertz’s case is quite distinct from Rompilla. In Rompilla, sentencing counsel did not just fail to rebut evidence of a prior offense, but failed to look at the defendant’s prior conviction file altogether. Further, the file was a public record, and sentencing counsel knew that the government would use evidence of the defendant’s prior felony convictions as an aggravating factor under state law. Id. at 383. Additionally, although Rompilla’s sentencing counsel was aware of a potential substance abuse problem, “counsel did not look for evidence of a history of dependence on alcohol that might have No. 13-3268 11 extenuating significance.” Id. at 382. Unlike sentencing counsel in Rompilla, Mertz’s sentencing counsel thoroughly investigated Mertz’s struggles with substance abuse in an effort to present this information to the jury. Additionally, we find that the failure to rebut evidence of an uncharged prior offense cannot be easily compared to counsel’s failure to examine a prior conviction file. Strickland indicates that “a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action ‘might be considered sound trial strategy.’” 466 U.S. at 689 (citing Michel v. State of Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101 (1955)). It is unclear why Mertz’s sentencing counsel did not rebut the evidence of the Warner murder and the Unique Apartments arson, but it is clear that Mertz does not overcome the presumption that this decision was one of “sound trial strategy.” Moreover, in Pole v. Randolph, we held that “[w]e assess counsel’s work as a whole, and it is the overall deficient performance, rather than a specific failing, that constitutes the ground of relief.” 570 F.3d 922, 934 (7th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Under this standard, sentencing counsel’s overall performance was not deficient. Counsel called twenty-five mitigation witnesses, including Mertz’s family members, former girlfriends, and a clinical forensic psychologist—Dr. Mark Cunningham—who offered testimony on a variety of issues. The jury heard firsthand accounts from Mertz’s sisters about the circumstances of the siblings’ upbringing, including the physical and sexual abuse they suffered at the hands of their stepmother and stepsister. Two of Mertz’s former girlfriends testified— 12 No. 13-3268 contrary to testimony offered by other women who claimed that Mertz physically and sexually assaulted them—that Mertz was not violent during their respective relationships. Additionally, Dr. Cunningham testified about Mertz’s genetic predisposition to alcoholism and depression, as well as the negative impact of the physical and emotional abuse that Mertz endured at the hands of his stepmother. These facts demonstrate that Mertz’s sentencing counsel was thoughtful and thorough in building Mertz’s mitigation case and that counsel’s decision not to rebut the Warner and Unique Apartments evidence was—at the very least—not sufficiently egregious to taint her performance as a whole. Mertz further argues that his sentencing counsel was deficient in failing to present a myriad of additional evidence, including: (1) evidence that his maternal uncle was a drug addict and a “mentally disturbed individual” who committed a violent robbery; (2) evidence that Mertz attempted suicide after he was arrested for a DUI six months prior to the McNamara murder; (3) medical records from the Veterans Administration Medical Center Pharmacy showing that Mertz refilled his prescriptions for anti-depressant medications the day before McNamara’s murder; and (4) an expert witness to determine whether Mertz’s combined use of alcohol and anti-depressant medication brought about a state of involuntary intoxication, showing Mertz’s diminished mental state. First, we find that the evidence pertaining to Mertz’s maternal uncle would have been cumulative of the evidence already presented to the jury on the topics of Mertz’s substance abuse and family history. In Bobby v. Van Hook, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of cumulative mitigation No. 13-3268 13 testimony, stating, “[T]here comes a point at which evidence from more distant relatives can reasonably be expected to be only cumulative, and the search for it distractive from more important duties.” 558 U.S. 4, 11 (2009). We find these principles applicable here, and hold that Mertz’s counsel was not deficient in failing to present evidence about Mertz’s maternal uncle. Next, Mertz claims that his sentencing counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce evidence of medical records and incident reports about his attempted suicide, because outside of his own testimony about the attempt, no corroborating documentation was presented. We find that these records would have been cumulative of Mertz’s own testimony, and that counsel’s failure to introduce them was not so flawed as to taint her overall performance during sentencing. As mentioned above, sentencing counsel introduced considerable evidence relating to Mertz’s family background, substance abuse, struggle with depression, and indeed, even his suicide attempt six months prior to the McNamara murder. The mere fact that additional documents would have corroborated Mertz’s testimony does not support a conclusion that his sentencing counsel performed deficiently by not introducing them. Finally, Mertz’s arguments relating to his use of antidepressants in close proximity to the McNamara murder are waived. The district court entertained Mertz’s argument that his counsel was ineffective for failing to offer certain evidence that he was involuntarily intoxicated when he committed the murder. This evidence included the fact that Mertz filled an anti-depressant prescription right before the murder, as well as a psychiatrist’s report indicating that 14 No. 13-3268 Mertz may have been susceptible to violent episodes as a result of combining anti-depressants and alcohol. Mertz, 2013 WL 5163189, at . The district court concluded that this claim was procedurally defaulted, and that Mertz could not demonstrate an appropriate excuse for such default. 3 Although Mertz now argues that similar evidence should have been presented during mitigation—rather than as an affirmative defense—arguments in a federal habeas petition which were not raised to the district court are not properly raised for the first time on appeal. Sanders v. Cotton, 398 F.3d 572, 583 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing Perry v. Sullivan, 207 F.3d 379, 383 (7th Cir. 2000)). As such, Mertz may not rely on this same evidence for a renewed purpose. We therefore conclude that Mertz’s sentencing counsel was not deficient.