Opinion ID: 1439724
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Counsel's inconsistent theories

Text: Goodwin's sixth claim states: The motion court clearly erred in denying a hearing on [Goodwin's] claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate his background and in presenting inconsistent theories in guilt and penalty phases, because this denied [Goodwin] due process, effective assistance of counsel, and subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment, . . . in that the motion pled facts, not conclusions that entitled [Goodwin] to relief; that counsel acted unreasonably in failing to investigate and provide their experts with all relevant background material and counsel called a psychologist Dr. Schultz in guilt phase who claimed [Goodwin] suffered from a mental disease and defect and could not appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions, and then in penalty phase called Dr. Wetzel who disagreed, saying [Goodwin] had no mental disease or defect and could appreciate that his actions were wrong. The motion court denied this claim without a hearing. It held: This Court has thoroughly reviewed reports filed by Dr. Rosalyn Schultz and Dr. Richard Wetzel as well as their extensive trial testimony. These records reflect a consistent diagnosis of [Goodwin] with depression and only a slight disagreement between the witnesses as to the severity of the depression. Dr. Schultz was of the opinion that the depression was to such a degree that [Goodwin] was not responsible for his actions. Dr. Wetzel agreed that [Goodwin] suffered from major depression but found him responsible for his actions. Dr. Wetzel was called to offer mitigation testimony to prove that because of his condition, [Goodwin's] ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was impaired. Based upon Dr. Wetzel's testimony, the Court submitted several factors in mitigation of punishment. [Goodwin's] allegation that counsel failed to investigate and provide a complete social history is refuted by the record. Both Dr. Schultz and Dr. Wetzel indicated in their reports and testimony an extensive list of materials and witnesses they had considered. From their reports and testimony it is clear that they each investigated a thorough social history of [Goodwin]. These doctors interviewed many of the witnesses called at the evidentiary hearing in this matter. The voluminous records presented at the evidentiary hearing were reviewed by these experts prior to trial. The trial record refutes [Goodwin's] claim that the extent of trial counsel's investigation in this case was unreasonable . . . . In order to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing, a movant must 1) cite facts, not conclusions, which, if true, would entitle movant to relief; 2) the factual allegations must not be refuted by the record; and 3) the matters complained of must prejudice the movant. State v. Blankenship, 830 S.W.2d 1, 16 (Mo. banc 1992).