Opinion ID: 1705084
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ineffective assistance of collateral counsel

Text: Finally, Hartley argues that we should remand the case for new postconviction proceedings because postconviction counsel (Morrow and Malnick) failed to adequately investigate the case and to obtain a mental health expert. Hartley concedes that this Court has held, and, in fact, all courts have held, that the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee a right to the effective assistance of postconviction counsel. See Lambrix v. State, 698 So.2d 247, 248 (Fla.1996) ([C]laims of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel do not present a valid basis for relief.); see also Zack v. State, 911 So.2d 1190, 1203 (Fla. 2005) (Under Florida and federal law, a defendant has no constitutional right to effective collateral counsel.). Hartley nevertheless contends that his case falls under a purported exception announced in Peede v. State, 748 So.2d 253 (Fla.1999). Hartley misreads Peede. In that case, we specifically rejected the defendant's claim that because both the State and the trial court had conceded the need for an evidentiary hearing, his due process rights were violated when the trial court reversed its earlier ruling and denied the evidentiary hearing. Id. at 256. Instead, we reviewed the circuit court's order summarily denying Peede's amended postconviction motion, examining each claim under the applicable standard of reviewi.e., to determine whether the claim was facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record. Accordingly, we reversed in part as to those claims requiring an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 257. In contrast, in this case the postconviction court scheduled and held an evidentiary hearing on several of Hartley's claims and continued the hearing over a number of months to accommodate counsel's search for witnesses. The record clearly reflects that both Morrow and Malnick hired investigators. Hartley's claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a mental health expert was specifically set for hearing. However, as explained previously, counsel did not present a mental health expert, and none of the witnesses at either the penalty phase or the postconviction hearing testified to any drug problems, juvenile delinquency, truancy, slow childhood development, special education needs, child abuse, traumatic injury, or any other mental-health-related area. Despite Appellant's protestations to the contrary, his claims of an inadequate investigation and failure to obtain a mental health expert are claims of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel. Such claims are not cognizable. [5]