Opinion ID: 1369544
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Givon

Text: Storey claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to [Dr.] Givon making predictions on Tim's behavior once he was `in a free community' because this suggested life without parole was actually paroleable[.] At trial, Dr. Givon was asked With regard to his antisocial personality disorder, it still exists, but what? Dr. Givon answered: Well, I changed the diagnosis to just a personality disorder not otherwise specified because he seemed to have mellowed some over the years. And I'm not certain that this disorder is completely gone and may not be reactive once he is in a free community. I felt that I should give him the benefit of the doubt. . . . Counsel testified at the 29.15 hearing as follows: I think that's misleading under the law under the facts that Tim had already been convicted of first-degree murder, he was never going to be out in the free community. And to make that suggestion would mislead jurors into thinking that was a potential outcome some day for Tim. . . . I missed  we should have objected to that or at the very least on cross-examination I should have cleared up with him that that wasn't a possibility in this case. The motion court held: The comment by Dr. Givon that movant challenges is insignificant and was not highlighted by the State. This comment was not repeated and there is no evidence that the witness intended to suggest that Storey could be paroled. When compared with the evidence of guilt in this case, it is not reasonable to think that this comment was what made the jury give the death penalty. Storey has not shown prejudice because he has not shown a reasonable probability that had counsel objected to this comment, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 391, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (internal citations omitted).