Court Opinion

ID: 9416143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:28:54.425678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:20.686739
License: Public Domain

BARKETT, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur in the majority opinion with the exception of its conclusion that the per*1319formance prong of the test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), was met in this case. Considering the defendant’s aberrant behavior — for example, handing the victim the clip from his gun during the course of the kidnapping— as well as his history of family abuse and chemical dependence, I believe counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain the opinion of a mental health expert who could have addressed Payne’s conduct and mental health condition and informed counsel of any relevant mental health mitigation evidence.1 However, because I agree that Payne failed to show prejudice, I concur that he has not met his burden under Strickland.