Opinion ID: 1786306
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Counsel Ineffective in Spencer Hearing

Text: Lastly, Bowles claims that counsel were deficient for not presenting Dr. McMahon's testimony at his Spencer [4] hearing. He argues that a primary reason counsel gave for not calling Dr. McMahon was that some of her testimony might negatively influence the jury. This concern would not exist in the Spencer hearing because the jury would not be present for it. Trial counsel's choice not to present Dr. McMahon's testimony in the Spencer hearing does not meet the requirements of ineffective assistance in Strickland. The clinical observations that Dr. McMahon made could have undercut the nonstatutory mitigating evidence found by the trial court. Her testimony still contained negative aspects. Thus, it was still a reasonable strategic decision to not present Dr. McMahon's testimony. Further, even if counsel had been deficient in omitting Dr. McMahon's testimony from the Spencer hearing, Bowles has not shown that he was prejudiced by it. The trial court concluded that the aggravators overwhelmingly outweighed the mitigators. Dr. McMahon would at best have stated that Bowles had some deficiencies that did not rise above the level of mild impairment. Dr. Krop could not offer significantly more positive testimony. And both experts posed a risk of revealing the other murders committed by Bowles. In light of these facts, Bowles has not established that this Court's confidence in the resentencing should be undermined. Accordingly, he has not proven prejudice, and we deny relief on this claim.