Opinion ID: 1133692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Failure to Use a Mental Health Expert

Text: Looney alleges that Cummings was ineffective for failing to present the testimony of a mental health expert during the penalty phase to, in Dr. Mosman's words, [tie] all of the disparate pieces of information in the record together through a mental health lens. With regard to the conclusions of Dr. Partyka, a mental health expert consulted by defense counsel, the trial court stated that [f]rom his battery of testing, extensive interviews and review of the Texas records, he concluded that the defendant had no schizophrenia or psychotic illnesses, had some antisocial tendencies and an IQ full scale of 114. His ultimate diagnosis was that the defendant was a psychopath who typically display social maladjustments or socially unacceptable behavior traits such as lack of remorse, criminal behavior, superficial charm, grandiose sense of self worth, the need for stimulation, pathological lying, manipulativeness, shallow emotions, difficulty with lasting relationships, impulsivity, poor behavior control, lack of empathy, etc. When asked for an example of a person who was a psychopath he responded the one that comes to most peoples' mind would be Ted Bundy. . . . Dr. Partyka further noted that the defendant's crimes were impulsive but not panic or anxiety driven. . . . During the evidentiary hearing, Dr. Partyka testified that Cummings chose not to have Dr. Partyka testify during the penalty phase because: My recommendation was basically that Mr. Looney has had a very difficult life; however, that I was not going to be able to bring that out without bringing out information that would hurt Mr. Looney, such as my view that he was a psychopath. So it would be more advantageous for Mr. Looney to not have me testify, but to have other people testify as to other mitigating issues in this case. Defense counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing that he did not present the testimony of Dr. Partyka at the penalty phase because he did not want Dr. Partyka's finding that defendant Looney was a psychopath with antisocial tendencies to be revealed to the jury. This Court has noted that a diagnosis as a psychopath is a mental health factor viewed negatively by jurors and is not really considered mitigation. See Dufour v. State, 905 So.2d 42, 57-58 (Fla.2005) (holding that defense counsel made a reasonable strategic decision not to present mental health mitigation testimony at the penalty phase because it would have opened the door to mental health expert's finding that defendant was a sociopath); Reed v. State, 875 So.2d 415, 437 (Fla.2004) ([T]his Court has acknowledged in the past that antisocial personality disorder is `a trait most jurors tend to look disfavorably upon.' ) (quoting Freeman v. State, 852 So.2d 216, 224 (Fla.2003)). Trial counsel's strategic decision on this point is endorsed even by Looney, whose brief acknowledges that [n]ot calling Dr. Partyka would have been wise. Despite this acknowledgment, Looney asserts that Cummings was ineffective for not finding another mental health expert to testify during the penalty phase. Cummings revealed at the evidentiary hearing that he intentionally did not call some other psychiatric expert because in his view if another expert testified it would open the door to the opinions of other experts who had examined Looney, which would have included Dr. Partyka. This Court has stated that [t]rial counsel is not deficient where he makes a reasonable strategic decision not to present mental health mitigation testimony during the penalty phase because it could open the door to other damaging testimony. Griffin v. State, 866 So.2d 1, 9 (Fla.2003); see also Dufour, 905 So.2d at 57 (citing Griffin ). Therefore, Cummings was not ineffective for failing to find another mental health expert. Cummings simply was not ineffective for failing to seek another mental health expert's evaluation of defendant Looney after Dr. Partyka concluded that Looney was a psychopath. This Court has held that defense counsel is not ineffective for deciding not to seek an additional mental health evaluation after receiving an extremely unfavorable evaluation such as occurred here. See Dufour, 905 So.2d at 56 ([T]rial counsel was not ineffective simply because after receiving an initial unfavorable report from Dr. Gutman they did not proceed further to seek additional experts for mental mitigation evidence.). Cummings was not ineffective in relying on Dr. Partyka's assessment of the defendant and in choosing not to present a mental health expert at the penalty phase in light of that assessment. As recognized by the trial court, defense counsel Cummings made a strategic and reasonable decision not to present [mitigation] through a mental health expert. Therefore, Cummings was not ineffective in failing to present the testimony of a mental health expert at the penalty phase, and his decision not to do so does not undermine our confidence in the proceedings below.