Opinion ID: 149617
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Performance Prong: Penalty Phase Strategy

Text: DeYoung makes several allegations of deficient performance by his trial counsel in implementing their chosen penalty-phase strategy of presenting pleas for mercy from DeYoung's family members and arguing residual doubt. Specifically, DeYoung argues trial counsel performed in an objectively unreasonable manner by choosing: (1) to call grandmother Letha DeYoung to testify; (2) not to call Nathan DeYoung to testify; (3) not to present letters from DeYoung's extended family members; (4) not to adequately attack Hagerty as a violent man who had a greater role in the murders than he admitted; and (5) not to refute the State's footlocker evidence. Having reviewed DeYoung's arguments and the record, we conclude that, other than the claim regarding Nathan DeYoung, each of DeYoung's arguments as to the alleged deficiency of trial counsel's penalty-phase presentation constitutes an improper attempt to second-guess a reasonable strategic choice of trial counsel. See Rhode v. Hall, 582 F.3d 1273, 1284 (11th Cir.2009) (Which witnesses, if any, to call, and when to call them, is the epitome of a strategic decision, and it is one that we will seldom, if ever, second guess. (brackets omitted)), cert. denied, 78 U.S.L.W. 3714 (U.S. Jun. 7, 2010). This strategy was reasonable because: (1) having the parents of the murdered victims plead for the defendant's life is powerful mitigating testimony; and (2) as we have noted before in several cases, creating lingering or residual doubt over a defendant's guilt is not only a reasonable strategy, but is perhaps the most effective strategy to employ at sentencing. Ward v. Hall, 592 F.3d 1144, 1170 (11th Cir.2010) (quotation marks and brackets omitted). The state habeas court's rejection of these claims was not contrary to or based on an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. [25] As to not calling Nathan to testify in the penalty phase, the state habeas court found that Jones and O'Brien made reasonable efforts to contact Nathan to secure his testimony, but Nathan did not return their calls, indicating he had no intention of assisting the defense in Petitioner's case. The evidence in the state habeas proceeding amply supported this finding.