Opinion ID: 2489132
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Present the Testimony of a Mental Health Expert Regarding the Nexus Between Child Abuse and Drug Use and the Crime

Text: In the third and final subclaim, Wyatt contends that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to present the testimony of a mental health expert regarding the nexus between child abuse and drug usage and this crime. In support, at the evidentiary hearing, Wyatt presented Dr. Faye Sultan, who recalled much of the same abusive stories as to Wyatt's childhood that the jury heard. Dr. Sultan then opined that because Wyatt was a victim of crimes and an abusive childhood, this background had a direct connection to the crimes that he later committed. The postconviction court denied this subclaim, stating as follows: The court finds Dr. Sultan's evidentiary hearing testimony merely a different mental health opinion based on facts largely cumulative to the mitigation evidence investigated and presented by counsel at the penalty phase, and thus not sufficient to support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the denial of relief on this subclaim. As this Court has repeatedly held, a defendant cannot establish that trial counsel was ineffective in obtaining and presenting mental mitigation merely by presenting a new expert who has a more favorable report. See Peede v. State, 955 So.2d 480, 494 (Fla.2007) (The fact that Peede produced more favorable expert testimony at his evidentiary hearing is not reason enough to deem trial counsel ineffective.). Here, Wyatt alleges nothing more other than that his expert had a different opinion from Dr. Rifkin, who found little mitigation in this particular case. For the reasons above, we deny relief on this claim.