Opinion ID: 1795741
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Preparation of Mental Health Expert

Text: Finally, Henyard claims trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately prepare one of his mental health experts, Dr. Jethro Toomer, for his testimony at the penalty phase. [13] Henyard attempted to prove Dr. Toomer was not adequately prepared by comparing Dr. Toomer's results with the evidentiary hearing testimony of Dr. Bauers' results. We find Henyard's claim to be without merit. The trial court found nothing in Dr. Bauers' testimony that was any more favorable to Henyard than the testimony Dr. Toomer provided at trial and also rejected this claim as legally insufficient because Henyard did not specify the mitigation that trial counsel failed to call to Dr. Toomer's attention. Moreover, the trial court noted that the defense team consulted two mental health experts and that there was no evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing that Dr. Toomer was inadequately prepared. We agree with the trial court's decision on this claim. At the evidentiary hearing, Dr. Bauers testified that he did not believe that Dr. Toomer did anything improper or that he in any way mishandled his examination or testimony. In fact, Dr. Bauers characterized Henyard's neuropsychological abilities as exhibiting some strengths and some weaknesses, but indicated that the weaknesses were relatively mild and that they were consistent with what Dr. Bauers knew about Henyard's educational, occupational, and sociocultural background. Therefore, we conclude the trial court did not err in finding that Henyard was not entitled to relief on this issue.