Opinion ID: 1920175
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation

Text: Johnson argues that counsel failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into mitigating evidence by failing to have a psychiatric evaluation performed on Johnson. See Ragsdale v. State, 798 So.2d 713, 716 (Fla.2001) ([A]n attorney has a strict duty to conduct a reasonable investigation of a defendant's background for possible mitigating evidence.). He argues that had the evaluation been performed, counsel could have presented mitigating evidence concerning his alleged adjustment disorder and alleged sexual disorder. In finding that Johnson failed to establish that counsel's investigation was not reasonable, the circuit court noted that Johnson testified during the evidentiary hearing that he met with Dr. Miller prior to the penalty phase. From Johnson's testimony it appears that Dr. Miller conducted a competency examination. However, Badini testified that he asked Dr. Miller to perform a full forensic evaluation on Johnson. Badini did not recall receiving a written report but did recall Dr. Miller telling him there was nothing there. Although testimony as to the extent of the evaluation differs, it is clear from the testimony of Johnson and Badini that Johnson was evaluated by Dr. Miller prior to the penalty phase. The trial court's findings of fact and ultimate conclusion that Johnson did not satisfy his burden of proof are supported by competent, substantial evidence. We give deference to these findings and hold that Johnson has failed to meet his burden to overcome the presumption of effective assistance of counsel.