Opinion ID: 1133749
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Family Background Mitigation

Text: Counsel did not question Hannon's parents about his background because [he] had no indication that it was bad. Regarding Hannon's school, military, or medical records, the following colloquy took place at the postconviction hearing: Q: [D]id you obtain any of Mr. Hannon's school records? A: No. Q: Did you obtain his military records? A: No. Q: Did you know he was in the army? A: I don't recall. Hannon's counsel could not remember if he knew that Hannon dropped out of school when he was sixteen. The evidence presented below established that Hannon's parents were constantly absent during Hannon's childhood because Hannon's sister suffered from scoliosis, which required treatment in another town. Hannon's sister testified that their parents drank to excess often and the children got some real good beatings. Concerning the beatings, Hannon's sister stated, My mother had two favorite things she did. One was just grab you by the back of your hair and slam your head in the wall. Hannon's sister also testified, I can't ever remember my parents ever saying the words I love you to my face, not ever. Hannon's sister left home five days after she turned eighteen because she hated it. Also, a cousin that Hannon considered a father figure committed suicide. Hannon's sister stated that Hannon went from job to job, place to place. There was also substantial evidence presented that Hannon needed approval from his sister and friends, and Dr. Sulton and Maureen Hannon both testified that Hannon was a follower. Hannon's mother stated that Hannon had a very close relationship with his sister Maureen, who began using drugs and alcohol, running away, and cutting school at the age of thirteen. Hannon's parents kicked her out of the house when she was sixteen. There was evidence that he also sought approval from his codefendant Richardson, but Hannon's counsel stated, Nobody substantially dominated Pat Hannon. He was an imposing presence himself. The majority has sub silentio chosen to treat this case as one where counsel did do a thorough job of investigation but then made a strategic choice as to what mitigation to present. However, it goes without saying that counsel must first be informed as to available mitigation to be in a position to make a reasonable strategic choice as to what to focus on in mitigation, and the obligation to investigate mitigation before making the choice is fundamental to the role of defense counsel. Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 536, 123 S.Ct. 2527. In Hannon's case, counsel's failure to carry out this fundamental obligation was not based on strategy. None of the mitigation evidence set out above was discovered by Hannon's defense counsel or presented as mitigation during the penalty phase of the proceedings. Counsel was not aware of and did not present any of the abundant mitigating evidence that has been demonstrated without dispute to have been available; instead, he simply continued with his nice guy strategy by asking vague questions on direct examination of the defense penalty phase witnesses concerning their feelings about whether Hannon could have committed the crime. This questioning simply indicates that Hannon's counsel failed completely to prepare for the penalty phase of the trial except to continue with his nice guy strategy.