Opinion ID: 2086125
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Defendant's Psychological Problems

Text: Defendant next argues that trial defense counsel was ineffective in failing to (1) present evidence that he was suffering from an extreme mental or emotional disturbance and (2) hire an independent expert to examine defendant. In his post-conviction petition, defendant presented evidence of his low IQ and psychological problems as a child. An evaluation by a psychologist for his post-conviction petition concluded that defendant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. Defendant argues that trial counsel's failure to discover this evidence allowed the State to argue that he should be sentenced to death because there was no evidence of any psychological problems. In dismissing this claim without an evidentiary hearing, the trial court noted trial defense counsel's investigation into mitigation. Defense counsel hired a mitigation specialist to compile a report on defendant's life, and interviews were conducted with defendant, family members, and friends. The trial court noted that trial counsel's investigation revealed no history of psychiatric problems. Moreover, the mitigation information found was discussed with defendant. The trial court specifically found: Mention has been made of learning disabilities and Defendant's juvenile record. However, these matters do not reach mitigating records   . The trial court thus appears to have determined that defendant had not made a substantial showing of either prong of the Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel: defense counsel's performance was not less than competent and this evidence would not have affected the result of the sentencing hearing. We agree. We first find that counsel's representation did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. Under the Strickland analysis for ineffective assistance of counsel, information given by defendant to defense counsel is critical in determining the reasonableness of counsel's investigation: The reasonableness of counsel's actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant's own statements or actions. Counsel's actions are usually based, quite properly, on informed strategic choices made by the defendant and on information supplied by the defendant. In particular, what investigation decisions are reasonable depends critically on such information. For example, when the facts that support a certain potential line of defense are generally known to counsel because of what the defendant has said, the need for further investigation may be considerably diminished or eliminated altogether.    In short, inquiry into counsel's conversations with the defendant may be critical to a proper assessment of counsel's investigation decisions, just as it may be critical to a proper assessment of counsel's other litigation decisions. [Citation.] Strickland 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. at 2066, 80 L.Ed.2d at 695-96. In the instant case, trial counsel stated in her deposition that she asked defendant, his mother, and defendant's girlfriend if he had any emotional disturbances. Defendant and his mother denied that he had suffered from any emotional disturbance, and defendant's girlfriend had not noticed any. Defendant also stated in his presentence investigation report that he has never had any type of psychiatric or psychological testing, evaluation, [or] counseling. It is also important to note that defense counsel stated in her deposition that defendant and his mother were very cooperative in his defense. Because of this, defense counsel stated that she had no reason to believe that defendant suffered from any emotional disturbances or should be examined by an independent expert. Counsel's failure to investigate further into defendant's mental history was not deficient. Not only did defendant and his mother lie to defense counsel about defendant's previous mental history, the report prepared by defense counsel's mitigation specialist also did not reveal any such history. Moreover, defendant lied in his presentence investigation report about his history of psychological problems. It must be determined that defendant did not want the history of his mental difficulties to be used. Our conclusion is supported by Federal decisions that have discussed similar situations. See Whitmore v. Lockhart (8th Cir.1993), 8 F.3d 614; Russel v. Jones (8th Cir.1989), 886 F.2d 149; Mulligan v. Kemp (11th Cir.1985), 771 F.2d 1436; Cooley v. Nix (8th Cir.1984), 738 F.2d 345. Moreover, we note, as did the trial court, that the evidence of which defendant complains, while containing mitigating evidence such as his low IQ and history of mental problems, also contained a great amount of aggravating evidence. We thus find that had this evidence been found and admitted, it would not have affected the outcome of defendant's sentencing hearing. We now briefly review this information. Defendant attached to his post-conviction petition an affidavit from Michael Levin, Ph. D., that concluded the following: (1) the effects of psychological conditioning in defendant's childhood resulted in a diminished capacity for self-control in certain circumstances; (2) the effects of a dysfunctional and abusive childhood resulted in a diminished capacity to know right from wrong, primarily in the area of aggression; (3) there is reason to believe that defendant suffers from a mental defect; (4) there is a high probability that defendant can be rehabilitated; and (5) defendant is not a danger to others while incarcerated. Dr. Levin noted in his report that defendant was beaten as a child with an extension cord by his mother, who waited until defendant was asleep before doing so. This, according to Dr. Levin, left defendant with a generalized anger toward women. Dr. Levin concluded: It would appear Mr. Thomas reacted from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder [in killing the victim]. Dr. Levin also noted that defendant was bullied as a child and defendant's parents threatened him if he did not fight back. Though defendant was punished at school for fighting, his parents praised him for it. The results of a neuropsychological test administered to defendant in 1992 for purposes of his post-conviction petition revealed that defendant suffers from mental slowing, which is an effect of nonspecific organic brain impairment. The report concludes that defendant could have sustained damage to his frontal lobes during adolescence from two head injuries. Defendant's school and juvenile criminal records reveal that defendant was enrolled in classes for the educably mentally handicapped and had a [l]ow level of achievement. Tests conducted in 1971 revealed a full scale IQ of 82, dull normal range of intelligence, and that defendant could have a schizoid personality. Although the preceding evidence is of a mitigating nature, defendant's school and juvenile criminal records also contained the following evidence in aggravation. One report noted that defendant was belligerent and hostile. Another noted that defendant had present[ed] a belligerent attitude and hostile behavior in the classroom besides his academic problems. Moreover, defendant's juvenile criminal records note that he had poor impulse control. And, when [defendant] is irritated and frustrated, he may act out in explosive ways. Moreover, defendant does not always tolerate the authorities well. A 1971 disposition noted that defendant needed very strict controls and supervision. Because of this, the State's Attorney and judge determined it would be dangerous to allow this person to walk the street. Another clinical evaluation in 1971 concluded that defendant, in his present condition, must be regarded as quite dangerous, specifically from a sexual point of view. A 1971 report also noted elements of conflicts with females and stated that it is not surprising to notice that the alleged charges relate to various attacks on females. Thus, while these records contain evidence in mitigation, namely defendant's low intelligence, they also portray defendant as a belligerent, dangerous person who could not be trusted on the street or with women. This evidence is even more aggravating when viewed together with defendant's six previous attacks on women, which were admitted at sentencing. In 1969, defendant committed aggravated assault against a female school teacher when he accosted the victim with a knife and attempted to lead her down the hallway. Several months later, defendant beat another female teacher on the face with a table leg. Defendant was adjudicated a delinquent minor for these two offenses and received six months' probation. In 1970, defendant accosted a female nurse at knifepoint, grabbing her wrists and leading her into a park. A little later in 1970, defendant again assaulted a female nurse with a knife. Defendant forced this nurse into her car at knifepoint and ordered her to remove her clothes. Defendant robbed this nurse. For these two crimes, defendant was adjudicated a delinquent ward of the court and was committed to the Department of Corrections, juvenile division, for 15 months. Defendant denied committing these four offenses. Instead, he told a criminal sociologist, he only pleaded guilty because his lawyer told him to do so. In June 1973, defendant repeatedly raped a female nurse, robbed her, and threatened to kill her. Later that year, defendant abducted another woman at knifepoint, ordered her into her car, went through her purse, and ordered her to remove her pants. Defendant was picked up by police after being observed following women in front of a hospital. After pleading guilty to armed robbery, deviate sexual assault, and rape for the first 1973 offense, and to attempted rape and attempted armed robbery for the second, defendant was sentenced to concurrent sentences of four to eight years. Defendant denied committing any of these previous crimes after being arrested for Dudek's murder. Instead, defendant told the authorities that he took the blame for a group of friends. When confronted with the truth, however, defendant admitted committing the crimes but described them as a joke to prove his manhood. Defendant also said that he did not care about the victims at the time. We conclude that the aggravating evidence against defendant was overwhelming. We thus find that defendant failed to make a substantial showing of any violation of his sixth amendment right to counsel on this issue.