Opinion ID: 1805203
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Childhood and Background Mitigation

Text: In his first sub-claim, Sexton argues that counsel should have presented more detail about his impoverished and abused early life to support mitigation. To establish this claim, Sexton presented the testimony of Janet Vogelsang, a forensic social worker, who testified at the evidentiary hearing that the circumstances of Sexton's childhood would have caused him to grow up without any understanding of normal and appropriate behavior. In her interviews with Sexton's family members in 2004, she was told of his family's poverty, the lack of adult guidance due to his father's early death and his mother's long-term disability through his critical years of development, and the serious physical abuse he suffered at the hands of his older brother, Otis. Sexton's brother, David, was her main source of information about the family's poverty and the alleged physical abuse of Sexton by Otis. David Sexton's 2005 deposition testimony was also presented at the evidentiary hearing, in which he reported that Otis consistently abused and beat up Sexton when they were children. David's report of Otis's abusive behavior toward Sexton was contradicted by Sexton's sister, Nellie Hanft, who testified at the first and second penalty phases, and by Sexton himself. Nellie told Vogelsang only that Otis hit Sexton in the stomach once. Sexton told Vogelsang that Otis's treatment of him was rough but did not mention a consistent pattern of abuse by Otis. Otis's deposition was also admitted into evidence, in which he denied all allegations of abuse. In David's first deposition taken before trial, he made no reports of poverty and physical abuse of Sexton as he was growing up. Vogelsang conceded that the reports of abuse were the first the family had given along these lines and that they did not report these same problems to Sexton's trial counsel at the time of trial. Further, from the evidence received at the evidentiary hearing and his own admission, David harbored ill feelings against Otis, who had reported to authorities that both David and Sexton had sexually abused their daughters. Vogelsang testified that she was not aware of this rancor between her main source, David, and his brother Otis. David's credibility was assessed by the trial court, which stated that it doubt[ed] the credibility of [David's] April 20, 2005 deposition testimony, especially in light of his prior testimony during the August 9, 1994 deposition. Also, in contradiction to Vogelsang's testimony, penalty phase counsel, Robert Fraser, testified that in his interviews with David Sexton and Nellie Hanft before trial, he was told that their childhood with Sexton had been normal. For instance, Nellie told him that their family was one of simple country folk who were religious and, while not affluent, were not poverty-stricken. Fraser said, I don't remember any deprivation at all from his childhood. His notes from family interviews also disclosed that Sexton played baseball and football, ran track, and also worked at a bowling alley. Fraser also explained the difficulty he had in obtaining mitigation information from family members by stating: His family was kind of a study in shifting alliance. One day his brother might love him; the next day or the next month or the next year he would probably hate him. And then, of course, so many peopleso many members of his family, particularly his children testified repeatedly that they suffered at his hands sexual batteries. He doesn't seem to have many friends or he didn't seem to have many friends. He was justit was just very difficult. ... Nothing is volunteered. This goes back to what I was telling Mr. Strain how in some families they just close the door and they don't let you into the closet. They don't let you see the skeletons. This is probably the worst case of this type I had ever seen. It was the most impenetrable. Although Fraser was able to interview Sexton's wife, Estella, at the Ohio Reformatory for Women and she told him Sexton said he had been beaten as a child, Fraser explained that Sexton never told him of any such beatings. The other information Estella reported was clearly not of a mitigating nature, including that Sexton had raped and impregnated her younger sister, routinely beat her and their children, was abusive and controlling, and lied about going to Vietnam. Even assuming that some testimony about physical abuse or childhood trauma suffered by Sexton could have been presented, Fraser explained, The fact that Eddie was older seemed to strain the connection between childhood trauma, problems and so forth and his behavior 40 odd years later. The trial court found that Sexton failed to demonstrate that counsel was deficient on this issue. In fact, the postconviction court specifically [found] the testimony of Fraser to be highly credible and the evidence to be persuasive and concluded that Fraser performed a reasonable investigation into Sexton's childhood and background to discover any possible mitigation and provided that information to the experts. We agree. As to Sexton's early background, Fraser made numerous requests for medical and school records. He interviewed and deposed family members, traveling to Ohio in some instances to do so. Counsel employed an experienced investigator to assist in discovering available mitigation. Sexton, his brother David, and his sister Nellie gave no reports to Fraser of childhood difficulties, extreme poverty, or abuse. Any deficiency in obtaining background and childhood mitigation was caused by the reticence of Sexton and his family members at the time of trial and by the unavailability of records from some forty years earlier. Based on our complete review of the record, we find that competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that counsel made a reasonable investigation into Sexton's background and childhood for mitigating circumstances; and that counsel presented the information he was able to obtain, given the reticence of family members and his own client to report any unfavorable family history and the inability to obtain certain records that were no longer available. [8] Counsel's investigation can be considered reasonable where counsel interviews all witnesses brought to his attention, but learns little that is helpful and much that is harmful. See Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 525, 123 S.Ct. 2527 (citing Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 794, 107 S.Ct. 3114, 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987)). Further, the jury actually heard substantial evidence of Sexton's childhood and background, including that Sexton's father died when he was only ten, that his mother was disabled by a stroke during his childhood, that Sexton had a low IQ, and that he later developed multiple sclerosis and other serious medical problems. The fact that a more thorough and detailed presentation could have been made does not establish counsel's performance as deficient where nonstatutory childhood mitigation evidence was introduced. Maxwell v. Wainwright, 490 So.2d 927, 932 (Fla.1986). Similarly, counsel was not shown to be ineffective in his decision to forgo presentation of evidence of Sexton's army service or his undesirable discharge. As counsel concluded, although he was aware of Sexton's army service, he did not think that information would have been helpful or mitigating. Sexton has simply not overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action `might be considered sound trial strategy.' Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101, 76 S.Ct. 158, 100 L.Ed. 83 (1955)). Therefore, the trial court was correct in finding that Sexton failed to show counsel was ineffective in regard to obtaining or presenting this childhood and background mitigation. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of Sexton's claim that counsel was ineffective in investigating and presenting mitigating evidence from his childhood and background.