Opinion ID: 78474
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Untimely Investigation

Text: Rhode's argument that counsel's investigation was untimely is also without merit. Contrary to his intimation, the effectiveness of counsel's representation at sentencing is not an exact derivative of the amount of time counsel spends investigating mitigation evidence. See Conklin v. Schofield, 366 F.3d 1191, 1202 (11th Cir. 2004). Rather, the time and effort [that counsel spent] in preparing to defend [Rhode] in the guilt phase of [this] capital case continues to count at the sentencing phase. Chandler, 218 F.3d at 1320 n. 27. In contrast to Rhode's argument that counsel only spent one standard work week on his case in the first year, Ford's billing records reflect that he alone spent over one hundred and twenty five hours working on Rhode's case in the last eight months prior to trial. See Ex. 59 at 3168-81. The extensive investigation here confirms counsel's initial belief that the defense strategy would involve mitigation, though not exclusively. See Ex. 59 at 3063. Rhode notes that Abernathy testified at the state habeas evidentiary hearing that she would have wanted more time to investigate. Ex. 59 at 3261, 3268-69. Her testimony is not, however, a sufficient basis to grant federal habeas relief because the record does not establish that she communicated that thought to Rhode's lawyer. Ex. 59 at 3065-67. The state habeas court noted Ford's testimony that he would have filed an ex parte motion asking for more time and funds if Abernathy had told him that she needed more time to investigate. Ex. 59 at 3066-67; Ex. 80 at 16. The record supports the state habeas court's finding that Abernathy did not tell counsel that she wanted more time to investigate. We agree with the state habeas court that counsel did not ineffectively investigate the mitigation evidence for the penalty phase and that counsel did not, in light of the chosen defense strategy, perform deficiently.