Opinion ID: 1129288
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Investigating the PIN Number

Text: Lott alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate whether the victim's PIN number and ATM card came in separate mailings. Lott presented evidence that the victim's bank has a policy of always mailing the PIN number separately. According to Lott, this evidence would have helped rebut the State's argument that the victim was tortured into revealing her PIN number, which he contends was the basis for the HAC aggravator. The State concedes that Lott's attorney did not investigate this matter, but argues that whether the PIN number came in a separate mailing is irrelevant. The circuit court agreed with the State, explaining that it could not see how it would tend to prove or disprove any material fact at trial had the defense proven that the victim's PIN number was mailed to her in a separate envelope from her credit card, which Mr. Lott used to withdraw money following the murder. We agree that Lott's claim lacks merit. Evidence that the PIN number came in a separate envelope from the ATM card would seem, if anything, to increase the odds that Lottwho obviously did have the ATM carddid not have the PIN number in writing, and thus might have tortured the victim into revealing it. Moreover, the trial court made clear in its sentencing order that the HAC aggravator was not dependent on whether Lott tortured the victim to get her PIN number: Based on the evidence, this crime occurred over a period of time. From the minute the Defendant entered the home until the victim was choked into unconsciousness (hopefully), she suffered unspeakable humiliation, terror, and pain. She was so afraid that she defecated on herself, her panties with feces on them were removed in one bedroom, she was completely nude and died in the master bedroom. Her mouth, wrists, and ankles were taped making her totally defenseless. Plier marks were on her arm. The State suggests the pliers were used to get her to tell her attacker(s) her ATM number. That is a reasonable possibility and perhaps the least onerous. There is no way of knowing how long this tortuous assault lasted, but common sense dictates it could not have been brief. Once the Defendant got everything he needed from Rose Conners, he deliberately slashed her throat, and to be sure she was dead, he stabbed her in the back. These acts were definitely conscienceless, pitiless, and unnecessarily tortuous. The trial court offered a litany of reasons why the crime was heinous, atrocious, or cruelmany of which had nothing to do with the PIN number. In fact, the trial court characterized the possibility that Lott tortured the victim to get her PIN number as perhaps the least onerous explanation of the crime, presumably because the victim would have revealed the number immediately and thereby ended the torture. Thus, disproving that possibility would not have prevented the HAC aggravator from being found. Moreover, the trial court found five other aggravating factorsCCP, avoid-arrest, pecuniary gain, prior violent felonies, and murder committed during a burglary or kidnapping or bothand the jury unanimously recommended a death sentence. Our confidence in this sentence has not been undermined.