Opinion ID: 1697955
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mental Health Expert Assistance

Text: In his postconviction motion, Trotter alleged that counsel was ineffective because Trotter did not have the assistance of a competent and effective mental health expert in Dr. Krop. [8] On appeal, however, Trotter presents a different claim: that Krop did not provide competent and effective assistance as required by Ake. Accordingly, this claim was not preserved for appellate review. As explained below, it is also meritless. In Ake, the United States Supreme Court held, with regard to the sentencing phase of capital trials, that due process requires access to a psychiatric examination on relevant issues, to the testimony of the psychiatrist, and to assistance in preparation at the sentencing phase. 470 U.S. at 84, 105 S.Ct. 1087. This requirement of access to, and assistance from, a mental health expert was met here. At Trotter's resentencing, three experts testified for him: Dr. Harry Krop, Dr. Frank Wood, and Dr. Michael Maher. Dr. Krop administered various tests, met with Trotter several times, reviewed numerous documents and records regarding Trotter's background, and interviewed several witnesses who knew Trotter. Based in large part on his testimony, the trial court found two statutory mitigating factors: that Trotter was under the influence of extreme mental and emotional disturbance and his capacity was substantially impaired. Trotter, 690 So.2d at 1236 n. 6. The resentencing court also found the following nonstatutory mitigators: Trotter's below-average IQ, family and developmental problems, disadvantaged background, possible frontal lobe brain disorder, and remorse, and other nonstatutory factors presented by the defense. Id. at 1236 n. 7. Accordingly, Trotter has failed to demonstrate either an error of counsel or the inadequacy of the defense's mental health expert. See, e.g., Elledge v. State, 911 So.2d 57, 72 (Fla. 2005) ([T]he record does not support the contention that Elledge was denied an adequate mental evaluation as required by Ake. ), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1173, 163 L.Ed.2d 1141 (2006); Hodges v. State, 885 So.2d 338, 353 (Fla. 2004) (holding that the defendant failed to establish an Ake violation because he had access to multiple mental health experts prior to trial, and the experts performed all of the essential tasks required by Ake ). Moreover, Trotter's allegations both below and on appeal are based on the testimony of Trotter's more recently hired mental health expert. As we have previously stated, mental health investigation and testimony are not rendered incompetent merely because the defendant has now secured the testimony of a more favorable mental health expert. Gaskin v. State, 822 So.2d 1243, 1250 (Fla.2002) (quoting Asay v. State, 769 So.2d 974, 986 (Fla.2000)). Accordingly, Trotter is not entitled to relief on this claim.