Court Opinion

ID: 9487754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:25:23.072093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:27.460930
License: Public Domain

HATCHETT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The majority holds that if the trial court committed a Hitchcock error in sentencing *1496Horsley to death, it was harmless.1 The majority also holds that Horsley’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to present expert psychiatric testimony at his sentencing hearing because Horsley has not shown that such testimony was available in 1977, at the time of his sentencing. I disagree with both of these holdings and dissent.
I. THE HITCHCOCK ERROR
The district court held that Horsley procedurally defaulted his Hitchcock claim. I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the district court erred in this holding. This, however, is where my agreement with the majority ends.
The majority “suggests” that the trial court did not commit a Hitchcock error, but states “for the purpose of deciding this appeal, we will assume that nonstatutory mitigating evidence was not considered by the sentencing judge.” Thus, the majority does not hold that Horsley’s sentencing court complied with Hitchcock. Nonetheless, I am compelled to respond to the “suggestion” that a Hitchcock error was not committed.
In its order granting an evidentiary hearing, the district court found that the trial court committed a Hitchcock error:
Likewise, it is apparent from the record that the trial judge in Horsley’s case considered himself bound by the enumerated statutory mitigating factors:
THE COURT: The court now considers mitigating circumstances as described in Title IS, § 342(9) of the 1940 Code of Alabama, as amended:
(a) The Court finds the only mitigating circumstance would be the age of the defendant at the time of the commission of the crime, to-wit, nineteen.
The court having considered the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances and after weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, it is the judgment of the Court that the aggravating circumstances far outweigh the mitigating circumstances and that the death penalty as fixed by the jury should be and hereby is accepted.
This procedure does not appear to satisfy Hitchcock or the eases cited therein.
However, no evidentiary hearing is required on this claim as the merits can be considered without further evidence. Whether this claim is procedurally barred is a matter that will be addressed in the Court’s final Order following the evidentia-ry hearing.
(Citations omitted). In footnote 7, the majority declares that we are not obliged to defer to this finding under the clearly erroneous standard because the district court did not hold an evidentiary hearing and, therefore, did not make findings of fact on this issue. This reasoning does not comport with this circuit’s most recent precedent.
In Spaziano v. Singletary, 36 F.3d 1028, 1032 (11th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 911, 130 L.Ed.2d 793 (1995), we recently stated: “While the issue of whether Hitchcock error occurred is a legal one, it is almost entirely dependent upon the answer to a question of fact: Did the sentencing judge consider any and all nonstatu-tory mitigating circumstance evidence that was presented to him?” In Spaziano, the district court found no Hitchcock error because “the trial judge knew that he was bound to consider, and did actually consider, the non-statutory mitigating circumstance evidence.” Spaziano, 36 F.3d at 1032. In reviewing this determination, we held:
Because that is a finding of historical fact — what the judge knew and what he did — we review the finding under the deferential clearly erroneous standard, which the Supreme Court defined as follows: [We then quoted a passage from Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573-74, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985).] In the present case, the district court did not hold an evidentia-ry hearing, but instead based its fact findings on the state record, documentary evi*1497dence, or inferences from other facts. However, the Supreme Court has held that the clearly erroneous standard, as defined in Anderson, is applicable.to fact findings drawn solely from documents, records, or inferences from other facts. Anderson, 470 U.S. at 574, 105 S.Ct. at 1511. Therefore, it applies with full force here.
Spaziano, 36 F.3d at 1032 (parallel citations omitted). In this case, the district court “did not hold an evidentiary hearing, but instead based its fact findings on the state record,” Spaziano, 36 F.3d at 1032, and, therefore, the clearly erroneous standard of review applies. Thus, under Spaziano, the majority’s reasoning in footnote 7 is simply wrong.
The majority also states that because the district court determined that Horsley’s Hitchcock claim was procedurally barred, it could never have reached the merits of the claim. Consequently, the majority reasons that the district court’s comments were merely preliminary in nature and the clearly erroneous standard does not apply. This reasoning is also flawed.
Although the majority suggests otherwise, it is common practice for federal courts, including this court, to hold that a habeas corpus claim is procedurally defaulted and then to also address the merits of the claim. See, e.g., Roberts v. Singletary, 29 F.3d 1474, 1478 n. 2 (11th Cir.1994) (“Although we find the Ritchie claim to be procedurally defaulted, our review of the record persuades us that even if we addressed the issue on the merits, Roberts would be entitled to no relief.”). More importantly, however, the majority’s reasoning once again manifests a disregard for this circuit’s most recent precedent. In Alderman v. Zant, 22 F.3d 1541, 1554 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 673, 130 L.Ed.2d 606 (1994), the district court considered a habeas corpus claim and “found that the claim was procedurally defaulted, an abuse of the writ, or in the alternative without merit.” When reviewing this decision, we stated that although we found the claim “to be procedurally barred, we feel it is necessary to briefly discuss the merits of the claim and the district court’s factual findings.” Alderman, 22 F.3d at 1553. Even though the district court held that the claim was procedurally defaulted, we went on to specifically state that the district court made “factual findings which are entitled to be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.” Alderman, 22 F.3d at 1554. Essentially, the district court in Alderman did exactly what the district court did in this case (both courts found the petitioner’s claim to be procedurally barred, but made factual findings on the merits), and we still determined that the district court’s findings were subject to the clearly erroneous standard.
I believe the district court did not clearly err in finding that the trial court committed a Hitchcock error. Even if the correct standard of review were de novo, however, I would still conclude that the trial court committed a Hitchcock error because of the similarity between the trial court’s statements and the sentencing judge’s statements in Hitchcock. Since this is not the holding of the majority, however, I will not discuss this issue further.
The majority holds that any Hitchcock error in Horsley’s case was harmless. Even though Horsley addressed harmless error in his initial brief, the state did not mention it once in its response brief: it did not list harmless error in its statement of the issues; it did not mention harmless error in the summary of its argument; it did not list harmless error as a point heading in its argument; and it did not mention harmless error anywhere in the body of its argument. This panel, however, stepping out of, its traditional role, raised the issue and asked the parties to provide supplemental briefing. The state’s first mention of harmless error came as a response to this request. The state waived the harmless error argument.
In Hitchcock, the Supreme Court indicated that the harmless error issue should not be raised sua sponte in this context. The Supreme Court stated: “Respondent has made no attempt to argue that this error was harmless.... In the absence of such a showing, our cases hold that the exclusion of mitigating evidence of the sort at issue here renders the death sentence invalid.” Hitchcock, 481 U.S. at 399, 107 S.Ct. at 1824.
*1498Instead of following the dictates of the Supreme Court, which this court is required to do, the majority cites a First Circuit case and a Seventh Circuit case for the proposition that the court can raise the harmless error issue sua sponte in this instance. Obviously, these cases are not controlling; moreover, they are not on point, for they do not address Hitchcock errors. Nonetheless, even this non-binding, inapplicable authority reveals the impropriety of raising the harmless error issue sua sponte in this instance.
These cases declare that when deciding whether to raise harmless error sua sponte, “the controlling considerations are the length and complexity of the record, whether the harmlessness of the error or errors found is certain or debatable, and whether reversal will result in protracted, costly, and ultimately futile proceedings in the district court.” United States v. Giovannetti, 928 F.2d 225, 227 (7th Cir.1991).2 The majority chooses not to analyze these factors. Indeed, if it had, it would have recognized that none of the factors weigh in favor of invoking harmless error sua sponte in this instance.
The analyses of the first and third factors are quite straightforward. When considering the first factor, we are faced with the voluminous records of a complex death penalty case. After a full-blown murder trial and capital sentencing hearing, this case has traveled the typical circuitous route of death penalty cases. Footnote 3 of the majority opinion summarizes the length and complexity of the post-trial proceedings in this case. These proceedings have included several trips through the state courts, a trip to the United States Supreme Court, and, of course, this federal habeas corpus petition. Clearly this is not the type of record suited for a sua sponte review. When considering the third factor, a reversal of Horsley’s sentence will not result in protracted, costly, and ultimately futile proceedings. To the contrary, an Alabama trial court will simply have to re-sentence Horsley. Thus, the third factor also weighs against the majority’s sua sponte discussion.
The analysis of the second factor is a bit more complex. Whether the harmlessness is certain or debatable necessarily depends upon the standard of harmless error utilized.3 Under the Chapman standard, the harmlessness of the Hitchcock error in Horsley’s ease is far from certain. Even the majority states that “we think we could conclude” (emphasis added) that the error was harmless under the Chapman standard, thereby conceding that the issue is debatable.4 Of course, the majority rejects Chapman and implements the Brecht standard. Still, I do not believe that the harmlessness of the trial court’s Hitchcock error is certain under Brecht. Indeed, in applying the Brecht standard, the *1499majority does not use decisive language, as it hesitantly states that it can “say with greater reason” that the error was harmless. Finally, even if the harmlessness of the trial court’s error were certain under the Brecht standard, the other two factors clearly weigh against conducting a sua sponte harmless error review. Thus, even the majority’s authority indicates that a sua sponte harmless error analysis was ill-advised in this instance.
In sum, I agree with the district court’s finding that the Alabama trial court committed a Hitchcock error and its finding should be deferred to under a clearly erroneous standard. I also conclude that Hitchcock specifically prohibits the majority’s sua sponte harmless error holding. Additionally, the majority’s non-binding, inapplicable authority indicates that a sua sponte harmless error analysis is inappropriate in this instance. Consequently, I disagree with the majority’s decision to deny Horsley relief on his Hitchcock claim.
II. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
The majority correctly states that in Elledge v. Dugger, 823 F.2d 1439 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1014, 108 S.Ct. 1487, 99 L.Ed.2d 715 (1988), we explained that the two-pronged Strickland test becomes a four-pronged inquiry when we are faced with a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to present expert testimony at sentencing.5 The majority holds that Horsley has failed to satisfy the third prong of this inquiry, which requires a petitioner to show that “it is reasonably probable that a reasonable investigation would have turned up an expert who would have presented testimony similar to that which was eventually adduced.” Elledge, 823 F.2d at 1447 n. 15.
In deciding whether Horsley has satisfied this third prong, we “must look to all the circumstances of the ease and consider all the evidence presented.” Elledge, 823 F.2d at 1446 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695, 104 S.Ct. at 2068). In holding that Horsley’s trial counsel was not ineffective at sentencing, the district court committed an error of law because it failed to recognize this requirement. Instead, the district court was under the erroneous impression that it was only to consider the evidence presented at the federal evidentiary hearing. This error becomes apparent when comparing the district court’s order granting an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim with its final order denying the claim.
In its initial order, the district court recognized that “Horsley’s counsel recalled that psychiatric experts probably would have been available, had such assistance been requested.” In support of this determination, the district court quoted testimony that Horsley’s trial counsel gave at his coram nobis proceeding:
Q: At the time Edward Horsley was tried, was a psychiatrist available from the State to assist indigent defendants in the handling of their cases?
A: Whether or not this person was a psychologist or a psychiatrist I don’t remember. My best recollection is that there probably would have been somebody available at that time.
Conversely, after conducting an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Horsley’s ineffective assistance claim, explaining: “Petitioner presented no evidence that it was reasonably probable that experts sueh as those who testified at the evidentiary hearing were available to Petitioner’s attorneys in 1977.” Apparently, the district court incorrectly believed that it was confined to the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing, for it had previously stated, when viewing the evidence as a whole, that psychiatric experts “probably would have been available.”
Unlike the district court, the majority recognizes that we are obliged to consider all of the evidence in the record. It states, however, that “the record reveals too little” evidence to satisfy the third-prong of the El-ledge test. I disagree. In addition to the *1500testimony quoted in the district court’s opinion, three other portions of the record indicate the availability of expert testimony in 1977.
First, immediately before Horsley’s trial counsel testified that experts were probably available, he testified as follows:
Q. What was your understanding as to the availability of expert assistance from the state?
A. Expert assistance in what regard?
Q. Well, for example — first of all, is there any psychiatrist in Monroeville?
A. No, sir, but there is one that from time to time has been made available through the Department of Health, I believe.
Later on in the coram nobis proceeding, Horsley’s counsel testified:
Q. Did you know of any assistance that might be available from the State in assisting you to analyze this case from the psychological or psychiatric point of view?
A. I think upon petition to the Court,probably he could have been examined if it was shown that he had something like that, but I don’t recall specifically. I don’t know.
Moreover, at the evidentiary hearing before the district court, Horsley’s counsel testified:
THE COURT: At that time back in 1977 was there a psychiatrist practicing in Monroeville?
THE WITNESS: No, sir, there wasn’t. At that time I believe the practice would have been to have made a showing before the trial judge about the need for a psychiatric evaluation, and then I suppose he could order one based on that. I mean-the practice has changed.
THE COURT: Where would have been the nearest psychiatrist back in 1977?
THE WITNESS: Well, it would have been the state institution, Mt. Vernon or Searcy or something of that sort, I believe, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Would that be true for a psychologist as well as for a psychiatrist?
THE WITNESS: Well, the mental health center had a psychologist there part-time.
THE COURT: In Monroeville?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Who worked there part-time anyway.
In reviewing the evidence as a whole, I believe that these portions of the record are enough to satisfy the availability prong of the Elledge test. The majority emphasizes that in Elledge we stated that a petitioner must show that experts were available at the time of sentencing “who would have presented testimony similar to that which was eventually adduced.” Elledge, 823 F.2d at 1447 n. 15. The experts that Horsley produced at the evidentiary hearing, however, did not present “cutting edge,” newly discovered, or radical psychiatric theories. In this respect, this ease is distinguishable from Elledge, where the testimony that the expert gave at the evidentiary hearing was unacceptable at the time of Elledge’s sentencing. Elledge, 823 F.2d at 1446-47. Put simply, the evidence as a whole shows that psychiatric experts from Alabama were available to Horsley’s counsel in 1977, and these experts could have testified about the basic concepts that the experts described in the evidentiary hearing before the district court.
Finally, because I also believe that Horsley has satisfied the other prongs of the Elledge test, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to deny him relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.6

. Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393, 107 S.Ct. 1821, 95 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987) (in capital cases, the sentencer may not refuse to consider or be precluded from considering relevant mitigating evidence).

. Admittedly, we have relied on the reasoning in Giovannetti before, emphasizing that we may address the harmless error issue sua sponte only where the harmlessness “is patently obvious." United States v. Adams, 1 F.3d 1566, 1576 (11th Cir.1993), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1310, 127 L.Ed.2d 660 (1994).

. As the majority points out, in Brecht v. Abrahamson, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993), the Supreme Court replaced the traditional harmless error standard, as articulated in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), with the less onerous standard, described in Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946), for cases on collateral review. I disagree with the majority's decision to apply the Brecht harmless error standard in this case. Like the Eighth Circuit, I believe that the Chapman harmless error standard should apply when a federal habeas corpus court is the first court to conduct a harmless error analysis. See Orndorff v. Lockhart, 998 F.2d 1426, 1430 (8th Cir.1993) (reasoning that "the Brecht rule is based largely on the notion that because the state courts can properly apply the Chapman harmless error standard on direct review, the federal habeas courts need only review those decisions under the Kot-teakos harmless error standard"), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1631, 128 L.Ed.2d 354 (1994).

.While the question here is only whether the harmlessness of the Hitchcock error was certain or debatable, it should be noted that this circuit has frequently concluded that Hitchcock errors were not harmless under the Chapman standard. See Booker v. Dugger, 922 F.2d 633, 634 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 900, 112 S.Ct. 277, 116 L.Ed.2d 228 (1991); Jackson v. Dugger, 931 F.2d 712, 716 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 973, 112 S.Ct. 452, 116 L.Ed.2d 470 (1991); Delap v. Dugger, 890 F.2d 285, 304-06 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 929, 110 S.Ct. 2628, 110 L.Ed.2d 648 (1990); Jones v. Dugger, 867 F.2d 1277, 1279-80 (11th Cir.1989); Magill v. Dugger, 824 F.2d 879, 893-95 (11th Cir.1987).

. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ("First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient.... Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.”).

. As an afterthought, the majority states, in footnote 20, that Horsley also failed to satisfy the fourth prong of Elledge: that the expert "testimony would have affected the sentence eventually imposed.” Elledge, 823 F.2d at 1447 n. 15. Since the majority did not engage in any analysis in arriving at this conclusion, it is enough to say that we have often held that a failure to present similar psychiatric testimony has affected the sentence eventually imposed. See, e.g., Middleton v. Dugger, 849 F.2d 491, 495 (11th Cir.1988).