Opinion ID: 160217
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Second Stage Closing Remarks

Text: 80 Mr. Hale next asserts that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel during his counsel's second stage closing remarks. Specifically, Hale contends that his attorney's false statement to the jury that Hale had been abandoned by his wife and daughter constituted deficient performance that prejudiced his case. The OCCA concluded that under Strickland, Hale had not been denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. See Hale I, 750 P.2d at 142. 81 The portion of trial counsel's closing argument to which Hale objects reads as follows: 82 And his wife Susan was here to testify earlier this week. She's abandoned him. He has a teenage daughter Jamie. She hasn't been here. She won't be here. I know it's easy to say that because of his participation he's earned it. I'm just asking you for mercy because you are better. 83 On this point, Hale fails to overcome the presumption that these statements might be considered sound trial strategy. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. First, it is not clear whether the statement that Hale's wife had abandoned him at the time of trial was false. Hale's ex-wife testified during a post-conviction hearing that she began divorce proceedings approximately six or seven months after this all happened. Second, it is undisputed that Hale had instructed his attorney that he did not want his wife or child to testify in his favor, in order to spare them any undue trauma. Therefore, it seems clear that in closing argument counsel was attempting to put the best spin on the fact that Hale's wife and daughter had not testified during the punishment phase, by attempting to garner sympathy. For counsel's decision to rise to the level of constitutional ineffectiveness, the decision must have been completely unreasonable, not merely wrong, so that it bears no relationship to a possible defense strategy. See Hoxsie v. Kerby, 108 F.3d 1239, 1246 (10th Cir. 1997) (alterations and quotation marks omitted). Here, the attorney's comments had a reasonable relationship to a defense strategy. 84 Moreover, even if counsel was deficient in making this statement, Hale has failed to show any prejudice. There is no reasonable probability that, but for counsel's [abandonment argument], the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. Thus, we find that the OCCA's determination that counsel was not ineffective was not an unreasonable application of federal law.