Opinion ID: 217434
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel at the Guilt Stage

Text: Pietri contends that his trial counsel, Peter Birch and Donnie Murrell, were ineffective because they failed to investigate and proffer an intoxication defense based on his extensive drug use that would have shown that he did not have the requisite intent to commit first degree murder. Pietri raised this claim in his post-conviction motion, and the trial court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing. During the hearing, Pietri proffered evidence from several expert witnesses regarding his alleged intoxication. Dr. Jonathan Lipman, a neuropharmacologist [1] , testified that he could speak about Pietri's state of mind only in neuropharmalogical terms. (R. Vol. 49, p. 1032; Vol. 50, p. 1105.) Dr. Lipman opined that at the time of the crime, cocaine toxicity was still present in Pietri's bloodstream, meaning that Pietri still craved the drug and was going through a withdrawal process at the time of the shooting. (R. Vol. 50, p. 1009-1010.) Dr. Lipman concluded that Pietri was suffering from metabolic intoxication which means that he had poor impulse control and his brain chemistry was not normal. ( Id. at 1113.) Dr. Lipman testified that the evidence was consistent with an impulsive act, not a specific intent to perform the act. ( Id. at 1116.) Dr. Harry Krop, a clinical psychologist, testified at the hearing that he reviewed several doctors' depositions, the police interview, the trial court's order, Dr. Iodice's testimony, Dr. Caddy's penalty-phase testimony, the medical examiner's deposition, the correctional facility's psychological screening report, and Dr. Goldberg's deposition. (R. Vol. 49, p. 988-91.) He opined that if he had testified at the penalty phase, he would have stated that Pietri was most likely intoxicated to some degree at the time of the offense. ( Id. at 993-94.) His primary diagnosis would be that the chronic effects of long term substance abuse had rendered Pietri's capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law ... significantly impaired. ( Id. at 1000.) Dr. Glen Caddy, a clinical and forensic psychologist, testified that Pietri's trial counsel hired him to examine aspects of Pietri's functioning. (R. Vol. 50, p. 1183.) Dr. Caddy conducted a background investigation of Pietri's development history and spoke to several family members. Dr. Caddy stated that he knew that trial counsel would ask him to provide information relevant to any mitigating considerations, and he would have been prepared to opine that Pietri was under extreme mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the crime. (Vol. 51, p. 1226-27.) Dr. Caddy confirmed the veracity of the testimony he had given during the penalty phase of Pietri's trial. ( Id. at 1246.) Dr. Faye Sultan, a clinical psychologist, who met with Pietri several times in 2001, testified during the hearing that Pietri suffered actual brain injury as a result of childhood sexual abuse and that he had a diagnosable personality disorder. (R. Vol. 51, p. 1254-1308.) Pietri's trial counsel also testified at the evidentiary hearing regarding the presentation of an intoxication defense. The trial counsel admitted that they considered the defense, but because there was no evidence of Pietri's actual drug intoxication at the time of the crime, they decided to rely on the lack of intent defense. (R. Vol. 47, p. 646; Vol. 48, p. 751-53, 813.) Peter Birch stated that at the time he did not think a jury would accept intoxication as a defense, even if they had the evidence to prove it, for killing a police officer. (Vol. 47, p. 645, 663.) Because there was no evidence to support the defense and counsel did not believe the intoxication defense was a strong one, they opted to proffer the lack of intent defense by arguing that Pietri was trying to secure more cocaine and acted impulsively when he shot Officer Chappell. Peter Birch testified that he spent much effort in securing a plea agreement, which they had until the night before trial. ( Id. at 692.) Birch was convinced that the case was a second degree murder case because there was no premeditation. ( Id. at 714-15.) He acknowledged that they presented evidence of cocaine to negate the premeditation by showing that Pietri was thinking about getting more cocaine, not about shooting the police officer. ( Id. at 718-19.) Following the evidentiary hearing, the state trial court rejected Pietri's request for post-conviction relief. Pietri appealed to the Florida Supreme Court. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court set forth the requirements enunciated in Strickland for a petitioner to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Pietri, 885 So.2d at 251-52. The appellate court then analyzed the claim under the parameters of Strickland and denied relief: In his first claim, Pietri argues that his trial counsel were ineffective for failing to investigate and present a voluntary intoxication defense, and that if they had performed effectively, it could have been demonstrated that due to Pietri's intoxication, he lacked the requisite specific intent to commit the murder. Pietri's claim must fail, however, because Pietri did not present any evidence at the postconviction evidentiary hearing to demonstrate that he was in fact intoxicated at the time of the offense. Furthermore, he did not present any competent evidence proving his inability to form the specific intent to commit the crime. Pietri relies upon the theory that as a result of his persistent use of cocaine on the days prior to the crime he was in a state of metabolic intoxication at the time of the offense and, therefore, could not have formed the requisite specific intent. This Court has consistently rejected this theory, holding that evidence of metabolic intoxication is not admissible at trial. Because counsel cannot have been ineffective for failing to present inadmissible evidence, Pietri's first claim is denied. Id. at 252. The court then recognized that Pietri was not asserting that he was actually intoxicated at the time of the offense, and his own expert did not opine that Pietri was intoxicated when he shot the officer. Rather, the court noted, Pietri was asserting that his chronic drug abuse had a lasting impact, and that while he had little to no cocaine in his bloodstream at the time of the offense, he was under the effects of the cocaine to the same extent as if he was legally intoxicated. Id. at 253. The court noted that Pietri presented a total of five mental health experts at the evidentiary hearing to support his assertion: Dr. Lipman was the only expert who explicitly expressed the opinion that Pietri lacked the specific intent to commit murder. Similar to Dr. Lipman's testimony, Dr. Krop, a clinical psychologist, testified that had he been called to offer his opinion, he would have explained that Pietri had a history of substance abuse and that he was either actively intoxicated or withdrawing from substances at the time of the offense. He would have testified concerning the effects of cocaine and how extensive use of the drug can cause individuals to have problems with judgment and impulse control, and how the drug can cause them to become paranoid and hypervigilant. Dr. Krop did not, however, offer any opinion regarding Pietri's ability to form the specific intent to commit the offense. A third expert, Dr. Caddy, testified that he could not give an exact opinion regarding what impact the cocaine had on Pietri at the time of the offense. He believes Pietri was in withdrawal and had reactive judgment problems. Dr. Caddy stated that he could not rule out the possible significance of a cocaine intoxication state which triggered Pietri into doing something he would not have otherwise done. The two remaining mental health experts offered no opinion regarding Pietri's mental state at the time of the offense, and one doctor, Dr. Goldberg, specifically noted that he never talked with Pietri about such subject. The one mental health expert presented by the State testified that based upon Pietri's ability to clearly recall the events of the crime, Pietri was able to form the specific intent to commit the offense. While Pietri presented several witnesses at the evidentiary hearing who testified concerning his extensive drug use both historically and during the four days immediately preceding the crime, Pietri did not present any competent evidence demonstrating that he was actually intoxicated at the time of the offense. Notably, it is unlikely that there is any one who could assert that Pietri was intoxicated at the time of the offense or could even provide an opinion regarding Pietri's mental state at the time of the offense as Pietri himself testified during the guilt phase that he was alone at the time of the crime and for several hours preceding the fatal event. Pietri has failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel provided deficient performance. The only witness presented at the evidentiary hearing who provided an opinion regarding Pietri's inability to form the specific intent required for first-degree premeditated murder was Dr. Lipman. However, even if Pietri's trial counsel had called Dr. Lipman to testify at trial, because Pietri has failed to demonstrate that he was actually intoxicated at the time of the offense, and, in fact, actually presented testimony to the contrary, it is unquestionable that the testimony of Dr. Lipman would have been inadmissible. Although this Court has repeatedly held that evidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible to prove the defendant lacked the specific intent to commit premeditated murder, see Spencer v. State, 842 So.2d 52, 63 (Fla.2003); Chestnut v. State, 538 So.2d 820, 822 (Fla.1989), we have further held that there are limitations regarding the admissibility of evidence of mental disease or defect within the defense of voluntary intoxication. Spencer, 842 So.2d at 63.... It is unquestionable that at the time of Pietri's trial, diminished capacity was not a cognizable defense in Florida. See Chestnut, 538 So.2d at 825. In Chestnut, we held that evidence of an abnormal mental condition not constituting legal insanity is not admissible for the purpose of proving that the defendant could not or did not entertain the specific intent necessary for proof of the offense. See id. at 820. Pietri essentially asserts that evidence could have been presented, not to show that he was legally insane or voluntarily intoxicated, but instead that his prior drug abuse resulted in a mental defectmetabolic intoxicationa diminished capacity which produced an inability to form the specific intent to commit premeditated murder. Such evidence was inadmissible. Id., 885 So.2d at 253-55. The court concluded that because Pietri could not demonstrate that he was intoxicated at the time of the murder and the evidence of metabolic intoxication would not have been admissible at trial, Pietri's counsel were not ineffective. Id. at 255. We conclude from the record that Pietri cannot meet his burden of showing that the state court's rejection of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was contrary to Strickland. The record indicates that at no time did anyone testify that Pietri did not form the specific intent to commit the murder, and Pietri did not show that he was intoxicated at the time of the murder. Pietri's trial counsel testified at his evidentiary hearing that they had considered presenting an intoxication defense, but decided against using it when they realized there was no evidence showing that Pietri was intoxicated at the time of the offense. (R. Vol. 47, p. 646; Vol. 48, p. 751-53, 813.) Thus, the state appellate court's finding that trial counsel were not ineffective because they did not proffer a defense they could not support, was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Strickland. Pietri is not entitled to relief on this claim. See Powell v. Allen, 602 F.3d 1263, 1275 (11th Cir.2010) (rejecting claim of ineffectiveness for not raising an intoxication defense where defendant failed to come forward with supporting evidence on collateral review), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1002, 178 L.Ed.2d 834 (2011). Furthermore, both counsel testified that even if the evidence supported an intoxication defense, they would not have proffered it because, based on their experience, it was not successful among jurors. The state appellate court also found that Pietri's metabolic intoxication defense was not cognizable under Florida law at the time of Pietri's trial. A state supreme court's interpretation of its law is binding on federal courts. See Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 690-91, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 1885-86, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975). Because this defense was not viable under state law at the time of Pietri's trial, his counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to proffer it. See Michael v. Crosby, 430 F.3d 1310, 1321-22 (11th Cir.2005) (holding that counsel was not ineffective for failing to pursue a theory of defense that was not cognizable under Florida law). Even if Pietri could show that his counsel were ineffective for failing to proffer a voluntary intoxication defense, Pietri could not demonstrate that their deficient performance prejudiced him. We have commented that detailed evidence of extensive drug abuse can be a two-edged sword. Housel v. Head, 238 F.3d 1289, 1296 (11th Cir.2001) (citation omitted). This evidence may have had a counter-productive effect on the jury, and counsel testified at the post-conviction evidentiary hearing that it was generally not a successful defense. Pietri cannot satisfy the two requirements set forth in Strickland, and, therefore, he is not entitled to relief on this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.