Ferrell v. Head (398 F. Supp. 2d 1273, 2005)

OPINION AND ORDER

THRASH, District Judge.

This is a habeas corpus action in a death penalty case. It is before the Court on the First Amended Petition for Writ of Habe-as Corpus by a Person in State Custody [Doc. 34], For the reasons set forth below, the First Amended Petition is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

The Petitioner Eric Lynn Ferrell was convicted in 1988 of the murder of his 72 year old grandmother and his 15 year old cousin. Ferrell spent the night of December 29, 1987, at the DeKalb County home of his grandmother, Willie Myrt Lowe. Ferrell’s cousin, Tony Kilgore, was also staying with Ms. Lowe that night. Early the next morning, Ferrell returned to the nearby home of his parents. He then obtained a ride with a friend to meet with his probation officer so that he could pay a past-due probation fee. Ferrell told the friend that he would be able to pay for the gasoline for the trip because he had recently received $900 in compensation from Rockdale County for wrongful detention. Ferrell paid his past-due probation fee, bought a six-pack of beer for his friend and himself, and then called home. A neighbor answered his home phone and informed Ferrell that his grandmother was “kinda sick.” Ferrell, however, told his friend that he had been informed that someone had hurt his grandmother. Ferrell speculated to the friend that the mafia might have hurt his grandmother in retaliation for a killing recently committed by his uncle. Ferrell returned to his grandmother’s house, where the bodies of his grandmother and cousin had been discovered. Each had been killed by two small caliber gunshots to the head. A large quantity of cash and rolled coins, which Ms. Lowe generally kept in her home, was missing.

Ferrell and other relatives gave witness statements at the police station. Ferrell initially stated that he had left his grandmother’s house that morning to go to work and did not remember anything unusual other than two hang-up telephone calls and some noises the night before. He did recall seeing a blue car in front of the house as he left in the morning. Ferrell was not a suspect at this time. Instead, the police suspected this was a revenge-type killing by members of the family of a man murdered by two of Ferrell’s uncles a few weeks earlier. This initial suspicion was shared by most members of Ferrell’s family, and was consistent with the evidence at the scene. The home had not been ransacked, the police at first did not realize the victims had been robbed, and the victims had been killed execution style by gunshot wounds to the head at very close range.

When Ferrell was questioned again later that day, the detectives learned that he was on probation for forgery and that he had been arrested for an unrelated murder. For their own safety, the detectives then asked Ferrell what he had in his pockets. Ferrell produced a large wad of money totaling over $500, which the detectives returned to him. Ferrell said that he had been paid $450 that morning for a roofing job. One of the detectives left and attempted to verify the source of the money. Ferrell’s mother could not recall anyone coming by the house that morning to give Ferrell a large sum of money. The man for whom Ferrell had planned to work that day was contacted, and he stated that Ferrell had worked very little in the last two weeks, knew that he had no work scheduled that- day, and usually had little or no money. The employer stated he often had to buy Ferrell’s lunch for him. The detective also discovered that Ferrell’s grandmother usually kept a large amount of money in her house, but that there was none in the house after her death.

One of Ferrell’s uncles was interviewed and stated that before he was arrested he left a handgun with one of Ferrell’s brothers. The - detectives obtained a search warrant for the Ferrell residence. During the search of Ferrell’s bedroom the police found a .22 caliber handgun that was shown at trial to be the murder weapon. They also found two boxes of .22 caliber shells. Four shells were missing. The police then arrested Ferrell for the murders. In a search incident to his arrest, four .22 caliber shell casings matching the ammunition found in his bedroom and bearing markings consistent with having been fired by the murder weapon were discovered in Ferrell’s back pocket.

Ferrell asked to speak with detectives after his arrest and the discovery of the spent .22 caliber shells in his pocket. At that time and in his later trial testimony, Ferrell gave the following account of the murders. As he was leaving his grandmother’s house, two unknown men confronted Ferrell and demanded to see his uncle, who had killed a man six days earlier. When the men pushed their way into the house, Ferrell pulled out his .22 caliber handgun. The men forced him to drop his handgun by pulling out a .38 caliber handgun and a sawed-off shotgun. The two men searched the house, murdered Ferrell’s grandmother and cousin with Ferrell’s .22 caliber handgun, threw the still-loaded weapon on the bed next to the victims, put a large- sum of money in Ferrell’s pocket, told him to bring his uncle to them, and left the house.

In 1988, Ferrell was tried for the murders in the Superior Court of DeKalb County. . He was convicted of two counts of malice murder for the fatal shooting of his 72-year-old grandmother and his 15-year-old cousin. He was also convicted of one count of armed robbery and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Ferrell was sentenced to death on September 17, 1988. Ferrell moved for a new trial, and hearings on this motion were held on January 4, 1989, and April 10-11, 1990. The trial court denied Ferrell’s motion for new trial, and the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed his convictions and sentences on March 15, 1991. Ferrell v. State, 261 Ga. 115, 401 S.E.2d 741 (1991). On October 21, 1991, the United States Supreme Court denied Ferrell’s petition for writ of certiorari. Ferrell v. Georgia, 502 U.S. 927, 112 S.Ct. 343, 116 L.Ed.2d 282 (1991), reh’g denied, 502 U.S. 1051, 112 S.Ct. 923, 116 L.Ed.2d 822 (1992).

Ferrell filed his initial state habeas corpus petition on July 19, 1995, and an amended petition on March 15, 1999. An evidentiary hearing was held on July 13, 1999. On February 8, 2001, the state ha-beas court vacated Ferrell’s convictions and death sentence on the grounds of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and a conflict of interest on the part of trial counsel. The warden appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, and the Supreme Court reversed the order of the state ha-beas court and reinstated the Petitioner’s convictions and sentences. Head v. Ferrell, 274 Ga. 399, 554 S.E.2d 155 (2001). Ferrell filed this federal habeas corpus action on October 21, 2002. The Petitioner’s motion for leave to conduct discovery was denied. The case is before the Court for a ruling on the merits.

II. STANDARD FOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), a federal court may not grant habeas corpus relief for claims previously adjudicated on the merits by a state court unless the state court adjudication resulted in a decision that.(l) “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court ,of the United States,” or (2) “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”

A district court evaluating a ha-beas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) “ ‘should survey the legal landscape’ at the time the State court adjudicated the petitioner’s claim to determine the applicable Supreme "Court authority; the law is ‘clearly established’ if Supreme Court precedent would have compelled a particular result in the case.” Neelley v. Nagle, 138 F.3d 917, 923 (11th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1075, 119 S.Ct. 811, 142 L.Ed.2d 671 (1999). A state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law when it applies a rule that contradicts the governing law as set forth in cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). “A state-court decision will also be contrary to [the Supreme] Court’s clearly established precedent if the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of this Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from our precedent.” Id. at 406, 120 S.Ct. 1495. The Supreme Court in Williams held “that when a state-court decision unreasonably applies the law of this Court to the facts of a prisoner’s case, a federal court applying § 2254(d)(1) may conclude that the state-court decision falls within the provision’s ‘unreasonable application’ clause.” Id. at 409, 120 S.Ct. 1495. The Supreme Court also held that “a federal habeas court making the ‘unreasonable application’ inquiry should ask whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law was objectively unreasonable.” Id.

III. DISCUSSION

The Petitioner asserts fourteen distinct and independently dispositive claims. It appears that counsel for the Petitioner assert what they consider to be the strongest claims first and the remaining claims in descending order. The Court will address them in the same order.

A. Claim I — Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-85, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932). As noted in Strickland, “[t]he right to counsel plays a crucial role in the adversarial system embodied in the Sixth Amendment, since access to counsel’s skill and knowledge is necessary to accord defendants the ‘ample opportunity to meet the case of the prosecution’ to which they are entitled.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 685, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (quoting Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 275-76, 63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942)). For that reason, the Supreme Court has long held that the right to counsel contemplates the right to the effective assistance of counsel. Id.; McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 n. 14, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970).

In Strickland, the Supreme Court set out the two components of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052; see also Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003). A petitioner must first show that counsel’s performance was deficient. Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 521, 123 S.Ct. 2527; Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. This requires a showing that counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 521, 123 S.Ct. 2527; Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The petitioner must then also show that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 521, 123 S.Ct. 2527; Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Unless the Petitioner makes both showings, it cannot be said that his capital sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversarial process that denied him effective counsel.

At the motion for new trial, new counsel for the Petitioner asserted a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The motion for new trial was denied and the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel was again raised on the Petitioner’s direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia. In affirming the Petitioner’s conviction and death sentence, the court stated:

Ferrell was represented by two experienced public defenders, one of whom had spent nine years as a criminal prosecutor. They filed numerous pre-trial motions, investigated the case legally and factually, conducted an extensive voir dire examination of prospective jurors, cross-examined state’s witnesses, presented defense witnesses, and delivered substantial closing arguments..

Ferrell v. State, 261 Ga. at 119, 401 S.E.2d 741. The court then correctly stated the two-pronged test from Strickland. The court identified the alleged errors of trial counsel in the guilt-innocence phase of the trial. It then held:

It is not necessary to address specifically and individually each and every one of these numerous instances of challenged trial tactics. It is sufficient to note that strategic choices made after thorough investigation are virtually unchallengeable. The trial court found, and the evidence supports the finding, that trial counsel thoroughly investigated the case and prepared for trial. Ferrell has shown nothing that would demonstrate that his trial attorneys failed to exercise reasonable professional judgment in their handling of the case.

Id. at 120, 401 S.E.2d 741 (citations and quotation marks omitted). With respect to the sentencing phase of the trial, the court held: ¡

Trial counsel interviewed numerous potential witnesses in mitigation, many of whose names had been furnished by the defendant. Only a very few could say anything favorable on the defendant’s behalf, and these testified at the trial. Although we do not find deficient attorney performance, we also note that Ferrell has not since the trial discovered witnesses whose testimony, if presented at the sentencing phase of the trial, in reasonable probability would ■ have caused the sentencer to conclude ■ that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death. Ferrell has not shown he was denied effective assistance of counsel.

Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). Thus, the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim has been presented to the state courts and a ruling obtained on the merits. The claim is, thus, preserved for review in this action.

In the direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia accurately set forth the controlling law from Strickland. The proper inquiry here, then, is whether the Supreme Court of Georgia relied on an objectively unreasonable application of federal law or determination of facts in denying the Petitioner’s claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel. “[A]n unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect , application of federal law.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 410, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (emphasis in original); see also Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 520, 123 S.Ct. 2527 (requiring that “unreasonable” state court decision be “more than incorrect or erroneous”) (citing Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003)).

The Petitioner contends that the Supreme Court of Georgia’s holding constitutes an unreasonable application of the standards for effective assistance as established in Strickland and outlined in Williams and Wiggins. In Strickland, the Supreme Court set forth a standard for deference given to decisions to limit investigation based on defense strategy:

Strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable; and strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation. In other words, counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. In any ineffectiveness case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments.

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690-91, 104 S.Ct. 2052; quoted in Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 521-22, 123 S.Ct. 2527. In the Petitioner’s direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia correctly stated and properly applied this standard.

The Petitioner contends that two later United States Supreme Court cases dictate a decision in his favor. In Williams v. Taylor, the Court upheld a defendant’s ineffectiveness of counsel' claim, holding that the defendant’s representation during his sentencing phase fell short of professional standards. Specifically, the Court found that trial counsel failed to introduce evidence of the defendant’s subpar intelligence and education, failed to seek prison records reflecting commendation of the defendant, and failed to return phone calls of a positive character witness. Williams, 529 U.S. at 396, 120 S.Ct. 1495. Moreover, counsel “failed to conduct an investigation that would have uncovered extensive records graphically describing Williams’ nightmarish childhood, not because of any strategic calculation but because they incorrectly thought that state law barred access to siich records.” Id. at 395, 120 S.Ct. 1495. For these reasons, the Supreme Court found that the sentencing counsel’s investigation into the defendant’s background was so lacking as .to render the proceeding fundamentally unreliable.

In Wiggins v. Smith, the defendant’s counsel at sentencing limited his investigation to three sources: (1) a psychologist’s reports; (2) a pre-sentence investigation report including a one-page account of the defendant’s “personal history”; and (3) Department of Social Services’ records documenting the defendant’s placements in the state’s foster care system. Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 523-34, 123 S.Ct. 2527. The record of the sentencing evidenced that this “failure to investigate thoroughly resulted from inattention, not reasoned strategic judgment.” Id. at 526, 123 S.Ct. 2527. As a result, the Supreme Court held that the state court’s deference to counsel’s decision to limit the scope of its investigation was objectively unreasonable. Id.

In the state habeas corpus proceeding, the Petitioner introduced additional evidence that he claims should have been presented as mitigating evidence in the sentencing phase of his trial. The Petitioner cites discoverable evidence suggesting that:

• Petitioner’s father was a chronic gambler whose addiction sucked up rent and food money.

• Petitioner’s family was repeatedly evicted, the children went hungry, and the family had to rely on friends and neighbors for help.

• Petitioner’s mother suffered from chronic depression, psychoses, fugue states, and visual and auditory hallucinations.

• Petitioner’s mother attempted suicide at home with the Petitioner, who watched his mother taken away in an ambulance and was not told until the following day that she was alive.

• Petitioner’s father abused the Petitioner physically and emotionally.

• Petitioner lagged academically and was placed in remedial classes, in which he still performed poorly.

• Petitioner, as a child, was dosed with noxious home remedies.

The Petitioner also cites discoverable evidence suggesting that:

• Petitioner has, since early childhood, seen visions and suffered auditory hallucinations, including that of “the devil inside his head.”

• Petitioner has had religious visions and has professed to believe himself to be a prophet of God.

• Petitioner has had seizures during which he may suffer altered consciousness.

• Petitioner has organic brain damage.

The state habeas judge considered this evidence, and held that the Petitioner would have had a better chance of escaping the death penalty if this mitigating evidence had been presented. In reversing, the Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the effectiveness of both trial and appellate counsel:

We note, as an initial matter, this Court’s own impression during the direct appeal that appellate counsel had “attackfed] virtually every decision made by trial counsel.” Ferrell v. State, supra at 119(3), 401 S.E.2d 741. Ferrell’s appellate lawyer testified in the habeas proceeding that she obtained Ferrell’s file from his trial attorneys, interviewed Ferrell, spoke to his family members, reviewed some of his school records, and subpoenaed various other records. She also had an independent mental health expert interview Ferrell, review the findings of the mental health expert employed by trial counsel, and review Ferrell’s post-conviction mental health records. At the motion for new trial evidentiary hearing, appellate counsel attempted to show that Ferrell’s trial attorneys had not prepared sufficiently for the sentencing phase. Toward that end, appellate counsel- presented a num- ■ ber of witnesses, including some of Ferrell’s family members, the mother of his children, and his trial counsel. Appellate counsel testified at the habeas hearing that Ferrell’s family members were “traumatized” at .the time of the motion for new trial. This testimony is confirmed by the testimony of Ferrell’s trial attorneys at the motion for new trial hearing indicating that several of Ferrell’s own family members believed that he had murdered his grandmother and cousin. Trial counsel further testified that they had been in contact with Ferrell’s parents from the beginning of their representation, had obtained a list of 40 to 45 possible witnesses, had used the services of an investigator to assist them in interviewing these witnesses, had obtained school and prison records, had obtained a review, of Ferrell by a mental health expert regarding his possible mental retardation and his susceptibility to coercion or confusion during police questioning, and had consulted with several persons who were well versed in death penalty trial strategies in formulating their “residual doubt” strategy for the sentencing phase of Ferrell’s trial. As this brief overview indicates, Ferrell’s appellate attorney attempted to show the limits of trial counsel’s preparation for the sentencing phase, but the evidence actually available, most importantly the evidence of trial counsel’s strategic decisions and attempts to develop a theory supportable by available testimony and evidence, was not particularly favorable to Ferrell’s claim that his trial attorneys rendered ineffective assistance.

Head v. Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 404-05, 554 S.E.2d 155. In response to the Petitioner’s claim that trial counsel presented character witnesses but no mitigating evidence, the court then explicitly revisited the issue of trial counsel’s effectiveness in the sentencing phase of the trial.

Although character witnesses sometimes might not contribute, significantly to a sentencing phase defense, testimony from Ferrell’s closest family members about their perception of his character and his inability to murder his grandmother and cousin fit well into trial counsel’s chosen sentencing phase strategy of showing “residual doubt.” Mitigating evidence is anything that might persuade a jury to impose a sentence less than death, and Ferrell’s trial attorneys, as this Court implicitly found on direct appeal, acted with reasonable professional judgment in focusing largely on the mitigation theory of “residual doubt” and presenting testimony consistent with that theory. To the extent that the habeas court held that character witnesses cannot offer mitigating testimony, it was in error.

Id. at 405, 554 S.E.2d 155. The court then set forth a lengthy comparison of the testimony at the motion for new trial and the new evidence introduced in the habeas proceeding. The court then concluded:

Much of this affidavit testimony suggests that the characterizations pertained to Ferrell as a young boy. Even assuming that trial and appellate counsel could have obtained this testimony, it does not appear that the impact thereof would have been compelling either to the jury at trial or to this Court on direct appeal as part of an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, particularly because Ferrell was 24 years old when he committed the crimes. In fact, it appears from the files of Ferrell’s trial attorneys and from the motion for new trial hearing that one of the habeas proceeding affiants, Ferrell’s fifth grade teacher, had refused to respond to questions posed to her by trial counsel’s investigative assistant and that another, Ferrell’s uncle, believed at the time of Ferrell’s trial and direct appeal that he was guilty of the murders. Furthermore, the motion for new trial testimony showed that Ferrell’s defense team had contacted staff members at his high school, but that none of them had anything good to .say about him. These facts indicate that neither trial nor appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

Id. at 406-07, 554 S.E.2d 155. The court also addressed the new evidence of mental illness:

Ferrell submitted to the habeas court the affidavit testimony of three mental health professionals suggesting that Ferrell suffers from organic brain damage, mental illness, an epileptic or seizure disorder, and mental retardation. ■However, this testimony, even if taken at face value, fails to demonstrate that Ferrell’s appellate lawyer rendered ineffective assistance, because she performed as a reasonable attorney would have by obtaining a mental health expert to meet with Ferrell, to review the findings of the mental health expert employed by trial counsel, and to examine the mental health records created during Ferrell’s incarceration. The expert employed by counsel on appeal found Ferrell to be competent, sane, and faking amnesia, and informed her that he could not be helpful. Testimony by trial counsel at the motion for new trial hearing showed that they saw no indications in interacting with Ferrell that suggests ed mental illness. Appellate counsel, like Ferrell’s trial attorneys, performed reasonably by obtaining expert assistance in investigating the few issues regarding Ferrell’s mental functioning that would have seemed of possible concern to a non-expert and then foregoing arguments not supportable by the opinions of those experts.

Id. at 407, 554 S.E.2d 155.

The question before this Court is whether the Supreme Court of Georgia reasonably applied the standard clearly established in Strickland and outlined in Williams and Wiggins to the facts presented in the state court proceedings. In arguing that the Supreme Court of Georgia’s application of Strickland was unreasonable, the Petitioner alleges that trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by performing a deficient investigation and presentation of mitigation evidence, and a deficient investigation of the Petitioner’s mental health. Rather than outline what appellate counsel did with the limited resources available to them, the Petitioner stresses what trial and appellate counsel failed to discover. The evidence cited by the Petitioner deals almost exclusively with his disadvantaged upbringing and indicia of mental illness — areas that, in Williams and Wiggins, were deemed potentially problematical in sentencing proceedings.

In reviewing the appeal of the Petitioner’s state habeas proceedings, the Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the trial record, the motion for new trial record, and the habeas record. Head v. Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 405, 554 S.E.2d 155. As an initial matter, the court noted the difficulty of the task facing the Petitioner’s appellate counsel. Id. at 405, 554 S.E.2d 155 (“[T]he evidence actually available, most importantly the evidence of trial counsel’s strategic decisions and attempts to develop a theory supportable by available testimony and evidence, was not particularly favorable to Ferrell’s claim that his trial attorneys rendered ineffective assistance.”). Following initial investigation into the Petitioner’s case and consultation with persons versed in death penalty strategies, trial counsel decided to employ a “residual doubt” strategy for the sentencing phase of the Petitioner’s trial.

The decision to rely upon residual doubt is a perfectly acceptable strategy at sentencing, particularly where the defendant denies guilt. “Creating lingering doubt over a defendant’s guilt is not only a reasonable strategy, but ‘is perhaps the most effective strategy to employ at sentencing.’ ” Parker v. Sec’y for the Dep’t of Corr., 331 F.3d 764, 787-88 (11th Cir.2003) (quoting Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1320 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc)); see also Tarver v. Hopper, 169 F.3d 710, 715-16 (11th Cir.1999) (citing a study of juror opinions concluding that raising residual doubt over a defendant’s guilt is “the best thing a capital defendant can do to improve his chances of receiving a life sentence”). Residual doubt can be particularly effective at sentencing where a defendant has insisted upon his innocence at trial. In such a situation, the time and effort expended by an attorney in preparing the guilt phase of a capital case may continue to aid with the sentencing phase. See Parker, 331 F.3d at 787 (citing Tarver, 169 F.3d at 715). Consequently, an attorney’s decision to focus on the guilt-innocence stage of trial and then to rely on the same arguments to create residual doubt at sentencing can be a judicious and effective use of resources.

When an attorney adopts a residual doubt strategy, it often makes sense for the attorney not to present other potentially mitigating evidence that runs contrary to the strategy. A strategy of residual doubt relies upon the possibility that the defendant did not commit the crime of which he was found guilty. Many forms of mitigating evidence at sentencing do not exculpate the defendant, but rather attempt to explain why the defendant may have committed the crime. Evidence of a defendant’s disadvantaged upbringing surrounded by violence may aid in explaining why he may have used violence to resolve a situation. At the same time, such evidence may erode any residual doubt, reinforcing the likelihood that the defendant would have committed the crime. Evidence of a defendant’s diminished mental capacity or mental illness may lead a jury to conclude that the defendant’s actions were due as much to derangement as to malice. At the same time, evidence of mental infirmity could also belie lingering doubt, undercutting the accuracy and veracity of the defendant’s testimony. Such evidence is particularly problematical in a case such as this where the mental health evaluations contain a long history of alcohol and drug abuse — marijuana, cocaine, LSD, amphetamine, Valium, phenobarbital, and Quaaludes. (Resp’t Ex. 41 at 38.) This history, if introduced at trial, was likely to add fuel to the fire of the prosecutor’s argument that the Petitioner was the sort of crazed animal that could shoot his own grandmother twice in the head and then go out and drink a six-pack of beer.

Because mitigating evidence attempts to explain why the defendant committed the crime, it necessarily reinforces the notion that the defendant did indeed commit the crime. For this reason, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has made it clear that sentencing counsel need not present all the mitigating evidence available to him. Chandler, 218 F.3d at 1319 (recognizing that because “[sjtacking defenses can hurt a case,” there is “[n]o absolute duty ... to introduce mitigating or character evidence”) (citing Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 794-95, 107 S.Ct. 3114, 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987)). Rather, “[cjounsel who fail to present any mitigating evidence, even when it is available at sentencing, may still be deemed constitutionally effective, provided that the decision not to present mitigating evidence was a tactical one based on the results of a reasonable investigation.” Hubbard v. Haley, 317 F.3d 1245, 1260 (11th Cir.2003) (citing Burger, 483 U.S. at 794-96, 107 S.Ct. 3114; Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690-91, 104 S.Ct. 2052). If sentencing counsel’s decision to forego presentation of mitigating evidence in favor of a strategy of lingering doubt was the product of a reasonable investigation, it will not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Callahan v. Campbell, 427 F.3d 897, 934 (11th Cir.2005) (“Given the hand Knight was dealt, we cannot say a decision to focus on mercy instead of mitigation was an unreasonable one.”)

The Supreme Court of Georgia found that sentencing counsel’s decision to pursue a strategy of residual doubt was reasonable. Head v. Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 405, 554 S.E.2d 155. The court cited trial counsel’s contact with the Petitioner’s family, use of an investigator to interview a list of witnesses provided by the Petitioner, review of school and prison records, and evaluation of the Petitioner by a mental health expert as evidence that trial counsel had based its trial and sentencing strategy on significant investigation of the Petitioner’s case. Id. It noted trial counsel’s consultation of several persons with experience in death penalty cases as additional support for the reasoning behind the residual doubt strategy. Id.

Appellate counsel attempted, in the Petitioner’s motion for new trial, to show that trial counsel’s preparation for the sentencing phase of the Petitioner’s trial was insufficient. Head v. Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 405, 554 S.E.2d 155. This is the same argument made by the Petitioner before the state habeas courts. In the state habeas case, the Supreme Court of Georgia compared the evidence and argument presented at the habeas proceeding with that presented by counsel in the Petitioner’s direct appeal. Id. at 405-06, 554 S.E.2d 155. The court found that much of the mitigating evidence proffered in the habeas proceeding was also referenced in the Petitioner’s direct appeal. Id. at 406-07, 554 S.E.2d 155. The habeas court was provided with affidavits from a number of the Petitioner’s friends and family suggesting that his father had a gambling problem and was responsible for the family’s poverty and attendant problems. Id. at 406, 554 S.E.2d 155. At the motion for new trial stage, the Petitioner’s brother offered similar testimony. Id.; (Resp’t Ex. 17 at 97-98.) The habeas court heard about a fire that burned down the family home when the Petitioner was five years old. Head v. Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 406, 554 S.E.2d 155. The Petitioner’s brother described the fire and his and the Petitioner’s transient childhood in the hearing on the motion for new trial. Id.; (Resp’t Ex. 17 at 100-04.) The mitigating evidence presented at the habeas proceedings and not at the motion for new trial consisted largely of affidavit testimony about the Petitioner’s childhood — reference to the stern and capricious discipline he received from his father and characterizations of the Petitioner as a well-mannered youth. This evidence, the Supreme Court of Georgia held, would not have been compelling to the court on direct appeal, particularly because the Petitioner was a 24-year old adult at the time of the crimes. Head v. Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 407, 554 S.E.2d 155; see also Gilreath v. Head, 234 F.3d 547, 551 n. 10 (11th Cir.2000) (“Petitioner clearly was not prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to present this kind of evidence. Petitioner was more than forty years old at the time of the murders, and ‘evidence of an abusive childhood would have been entitled to little, if any, mitigating weight.’ ”) (quoting Marek v. Singletary, 62 F.3d 1295, 1300-01 (11th Cir.1995)).

The Supreme Court of Georgia also evaluated appellate counsel’s investigation into and presentation of evidence concerning the Petitioner’s mental health. Appellate counsel obtained funds for a mental health expert to meet with the Petitioner. The expert reviewed the findings of the mental health professional employed by trial counsel and records of the Petitioner’s “suicide watch” status while in prison. He informed appellate counsel that he found the Petitioner to be competent, sane, and faking amnesia, and concluded that he could not be helpful in pursuing the Petitioner’s appeal. Based on these findings, the Supreme Court concluded that appellate counsel “performed reasonably by obtaining expert assistance in investigating the few issues regarding Ferrell’s mental functioning that would have seemed of possible concern to a non-expert and then foregoing arguments not supportable by the opinions of those experts.” Head v. Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 407, 554 S.E.2d 155. In the state habeas proceeding, the Petitioner submitted affidavits from three mental health experts suggesting that the Petitioner suffers from organic brain damage, mental illness, a seizure disorder, and mental retardation. Appellate counsel’s investigation into the Petitioner’s mental health was largely limited to evaluations of competence and sanity. Citing the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Brownlee v. Haley, 306 F.3d 1043 (11th Cir.2002), the

Petitioner contends that because appellate counsel failed to recognize and investigate the Petitioner’s mitigating mental conditions, she provided ineffective assistance of counsel. This case is easily distinguished from Brownlee where the district court “expressly rejected the argument that the decision to present no mitigating evidence was strategic, noting that [trial counsel] ‘did not ... pursue a penalty phase strategy emphasizing residual doubt.’ ” Brownlee, 306 F.3d at 1069. Here, sentencing counsel clearly advanced, albeit at times inartfully so, a theory of residual doubt in the sentencing proceedings.

Attorneys “do not enjoy the benefit of endless time, energy, or financial resources.” Williams v. Head, 185 F.3d 1223, 1237 (11th Cir.1999) (quoting Rogers v. Zant, 13 F.3d 384, 387 (11th Cir.1994)). The Supreme Court of Georgia recognized that, during the Petitioner’s direct appeal, appellate counsel had “attack[ed] virtually every decision made by trial counsel.” Head v. Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 404, 554 S.E.2d 155 (quoting Ferrell v. State, 261 Ga. at 119, 401 S.E.2d 741). Counsel’s decision to limit investigation into a given area — here, the Petitioner’s mental conditions — must be afforded a heavy measure of deference. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Here, the Supreme Court of Georgia has afforded deference both to sentencing counsel’s reasoned decision to pursue a theory of residual doubt and appellate counsel’s decision to employ her limited resources in ways other than to attack sentencing counsel’s strategic decision..

After independently reviewing the trial record, the appellate record, and the habe-as record, this Court cannot hold that the Supreme Court of Georgia’s denial of ha-beas relief for ineffective assistance of trial or appellate counsel was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. Trial counsel and appellate counsel performed reasonable and adequate investigations into the availability of mitigating evidence. Trial counsel’s strategic decision to rely upon residual doubt and a plea for mercy was a reasonable one. Consequently, pursuant to Strickland and its progeny, this Court denies relief as to the Petitioner’s first habeas claim.

The Supreme Court of Georgia did not directly address the prejudice prong of the Strickland test. Therefore, this Court is left with the findings of fact .and conclusions of law of the habeas trial court. It is clear that the trial court applied the wrong standard to determine prejudice. In granting the writ, the habeas court stated: “However, had this mitigating evidence been submitted to the jury, at least Petitioner would have stood a more reasonable opportunity to obtain the jury’s consideration and mercy.” (Resp’t Ex. 59 at 10.) That is not the test. In order to meet the prejudice prong of the Strickland test, the defendant must show there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. “It is not enough for the defendant to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.” Id. at 693, 104 S.Ct. 2052. When a defendant challenges a death sentence, the court must evaluate the totality of the available mitigation evidence — both that adduced at trial, and the evidence adduced in the habeas proceeding- — -and reweigh it against the evidence in aggravation. Callahan v. Campbell, 427 F.3d 897, 934 (11th Cir.2005).

Much of the newly discovered mitigating evidence is contradictory. Much of it — such as the long history of drug abuse — could weigh in favor of the death penalty. Taken as a whole, the new mitigating evidence' weighed against the aggravating evidence does not persuade this Court that the Petitioner has shown a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. The evidence was overwhelming that the Petitioner put a gun to the head of his sleeping cousin and. murdered him. He then shot his own grandmother twice in the head. His motive was to steal his grandmother’s money. This was’ coldblooded murder, not a crime of impulse or passion. These horrific facts outweigh any evidence of childhood hardships. Claim I of the petition is without merit.

B. Claim II — Closing Argument

The Petitioner contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel as a result of his trial counsel’s allegedly dehumanizing and denigrating closing argument. The Respondent alleges that the Petitioner raises this claim for the first time' in this federal habeas corpus petition. Before bringing a federal habeas petition, a state prisoner must exhaust all state court remedies that are available for challenging his conviction, either on direct appeal or in a state post-conviction motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Nelson v. Schofeld, 371 F.3d 768, 769-70 (11th Cir.2004). Inclusion of an unexhausted claim does not require dismissal of the petition, but rather may persuade the court to deem such claim procedurally defaulted. See Gray v. Netherlands 518 U.S. 152, 161-62, 116 S.Ct. 2074, 135 L.Ed.2d 457 (1996); Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 263 n. 9, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989) (a “federal habeas corpus court need not require that a federal claim be presented to a state court if it is clear that the state court would • hold the claim procedurally barred”). Pursuant to Georgia’s successive petition rule, O.C.G.A. § 9-14-51, an unexhausted claim is procedurally barred if it was reasonably available for presentation at the time of a petitioner’s first state habeas corpus proceeding. Thus, if at his state proceedings, the Petitioner failed to raise the claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s closing argument, the claim would be procedurally defaulted.

The Respondent fails to demonstrate that the' Petitioner’s claim is unex-hausted, and that it should be procedurally defaulted. The Petitioner first argued that his trial counsel’s closing argument at sentencing was ineffective in his direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia. (Resp’t Ex. 19 at 26-29.) His brief before the Supreme Court raised the issue of closing argument at the penalty phase of trial, citing specific statements by trial counsel that served to dehumanize and denigrate the Petitioner and arguing that the argument prejudiced his sentencing. Id. The Petitioner also raised this argument, albeit in conjunction with other ineffective assistance of counsel claims, in his brief supporting his amended petition for habeas corpus at the state level. (Resp’t Ex. 54 at 2, 141.) The state habeas brief states that trial counsel “made a closing argument to the jury which was actively hostile, denigrated Mr. Ferrell, and called his innocence testimony ludicrous and unbelievable.” (Id. at 2.) The brief also outlines the legal ramifications of a counterproductive closing argument, noting that “[i]n combination with the indefensible closing argument, the[ ] errors dictate the conclusion that counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient.” (Id. at 141 (quoting Wade v. Calderon, 29 F.3d 1312, 1325 (9th Cir.1994), and citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052).) The Petitioner’s claim of deficiency in trial counsel’s closing argument was not addressed by the Supreme Court of Georgia in its order affirming the conviction and sentence. Nor was it addressed in the state habeas order. But it was preserved and may be considered on the merits by this Court.

As to this claim, the Petitioner has not satisfied either prong of the Strickland test. Trial counsel’s closing argument in the sentencing phase is not likely to become a model in law school trial practice courses. In an effort to gain credibility with the jury, he probably overstated the case against the Petitioner. But the state had a very strong case. Admitting this is not ineffective assistance of counsel. It did not inject any new prejudicial matter into the sentencing phase of the trial. The Petitioner told an absurd and utterly unbelievable story about how he ended up with the murder weapon, the spent shell casing and several hundred dollars belonging to the victim. Counsel argued residual doubt and pleaded for mercy. As long as the Petitioner continued to . deny his guilt, there was not much more he could do. This was not a close case where a more effective closing argument could have changed the outcome. If counsel’s performance was deficient, the Petitioner has not shown a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have beén different.

C. Claim III — Conflict of Interest

The Petitioner argues that a conflict of interest prevented his trial counsel from providing adequate legal assistance as required by the Sixth Amendment. Specifically, the Petitioner alleges that his trial counsel labored under a conflict of interest because the public defenders’ office simultaneously represented his uncles in another murder -case. ‘ In pretrial proceedings, the Petitioner objected to the conflict, but his attorneys represented to the trial court that they did not perceive any conflict to exist unless the state intended to call the uncles as witnesses. The trial court called on the attorneys to investigate the conflict. After the state agreed not to call the uncles, the attorneys continued to represent the Petitioner throughout the trial. On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed the Petitioner’s claim and held that there was no actual conflict of interest. The court stated:

There was no relationship between the two separate cases of murder, and the defendant’s uncles did not testify at, and had no information relevant to, this trial. There was no actual conflict of interest adversely affecting trial counsel’s ■ performance in this case. The trial court did not err in its handling of the defendant’s objection to representation by public defenders.

Ferrell v. State, 261 Ga. at 120, 401 S.E.2d 741 (citations omitted). After the Petitioner raised the issue in his state . habeas proceedings, the habeas court concluded that the Petitioner’s appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance in her handling of the argument that trial counsel faced a conflict of interest. This conclusion was based upon an erroneous factual finding that the uncles did not testify because of plea bargains with the state. Upon appeal to the Supréme Court of Georgia, the court again found no actual conflict of interest and held that “nothing presented in Ferrell’s habeas proceeding would have in reasonable probability changed that conclusion.” Head v. Ferrell, 274 Ga. 399, 408, 554 S.E.2d 155 (2001).

The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to effective assistance of counsel. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Hamilton v. Ford, 969 F.2d 1006, 1011 (11th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1000, 113 S.Ct. 1625, 123 L.Ed.2d 183 (1993). A lawyer who represents multiple defendants with conflicting interests cannot provide sufficient legal assistance to satisfy the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 481, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978). “[W]hen counsel is burdened with a conflict of interest, she ‘breaches the duty of loyalty, perhaps the most basic of counsel’s duties’ and has therefore failed to provide effective assistance of counsel.” Hamilton, 969 F.2d at 1011 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692, 104 S.Ct. 2052).

In Holloway v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant who objects to his representation based on a conflict of interest prior to trial need not demonstrate the existence of actual conflict. Holloway, 435 U.S. at 490-91, 98 S.Ct. 1173. The Court recognized that when counsel represents conflicting interests, actual conflict can be extraordinarily difficult to demonstrate, as “the evil ... is in what the advocate finds himself compelled to refrain from doing, not only at trial, but also as to possible pretrial plea negotiations and in the sentencing process.” Id. at 490, 98 S.Ct. 1173 (emphasis in original). Pursuant to Holloway, the Eleventh Circuit has held that “in the situation where there is both a timely objection’ and the trial court fails to appoint separate counsel or to inquire adequately into the possibility of a conflict of interest, the reversal will be automatic.” Hamilton, 969 F.2d at 1012 (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Sutton, 794 F.2d 1415, 1419 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Cirrincione, 780 F.2d 620, 625 (7th Cir.1985); United States v. Punch, 722 F.2d 146, 152 (5th Cir.1983). As the trial court did not appoint new counsel for the Petitioner, this Court is faced with two distinct questions: (1) did the Petitioner offer timely objection, and (2) did the court inquire sufficiently into the possibility of a conflict of interest.

The Petitioner clearly raised a timely objection to his representation by counsel with an alleged conflict of interest! As noted above, the trial court prompted the Petitioner to raise any pertinent pretrial objections in the First Proceeding. (First Proceeding 6-8). He responded by clearly and unequivocally expressing objection to being represented by lawyers from the same office that was simultaneously representing his uncles in another murder case. Id. Indeed, the trial court recognized his objection and ordered his attorneys to investigate the nature and scope of the potential conflict. Id. The question that remains for this Court is whether the trial court’s order constituted sufficient inquiry into the possibility of conflict to satisfy the standard suggested by Holloway and outlined in Hamilton.

Habeas courts generally defer to the judgment of defense counsel regarding the existence or absence of a disabling conflict. Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 167-68, 122 S.Ct. 1237, 152 L.Ed.2d 291 (2002); Holloway, 435 U.S. at 485, 98 S.Ct. 1173. The primary reason for according such deference to counsel is that “an attorney representing two defendants in a criminal matter is in the best position professionally and ethically to determine when a conflict of interest exists or will probably develop in the course of a trial.” Holloway, 435 U.S. at 485, 98 S.Ct. 1173. Moreover, as an officer of the court, defense counsel has an obligation to promptly and honestly advise the court of a discovered conflict of interest. Id. at 486, 98 S.Ct. 1173. In most cases, defense counsel requests severance or appointment of separate counsel, and this request is presumptively valid. In this case, however, the Petitioner made the request for investigation of a conflict and, potentially, appointment of separate counsel. Defense counsel came to the reasoned conclusion that no disabling conflict existed and, consequently, that no separate representation was required. Although this situation differs from that in the controlling cases, the principle that defense counsel’s decision should be afforded deference remains salient. The reasons underlying this principle still apply; defense counsel was in a position to evaluate the conflict and was under a duty to the court to do so impartially.

In this case, defense counsel concluded that there was no conflict if the prosecution did not intend to call the Petitioner’s uncles to testify. This is consistent with other cases. See, e.g., United States v. McCullah, 76 F.3d 1087, 1099 (10th Cir.1996) (finding adequate inquiry where potential witness causing potential conflict was disqualified from testifying). In addition, other courts have held that a potential conflict is not created by the representation of defendants by attorneys in the same office. See, e.g., United States v. Trevino, 992 F.2d 64, 66 (5th Cir.1993) (“The potential for such conflicts, however, does not necessarily exist when ... code-fendants are represented by different attorneys, albeit in the same public defender office.”). In this case, the trial court, after requesting that defense counsel investigate the conflict and according deference to the defense counsel’s appraisal of the potential conflict, concluded that no conflict barred defense counsel from representing the Petitioner. As counseled by Holloway and the Tenth Circuit’s holding in McCullah, the trial court’s inquiry into the conflict and its reliance on defense counsel’s representations were sufficient to meet the requirements of the Sixth Amendment.

In Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 5.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980), the Supreme Court of the United States held that to establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim stemming from a conflict of interest where there was no objection at trial, a defendant “must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.” Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 348, 100 S.Ct. 1708. Two steps were incumbent in this analysis: (1) determining whether an actual conflict existed, and (2) determining whether the conflict had an adverse effect on representation. Buenoano v. Singletary, 74 F.3d 1078, 1086 (11th Cir.1996). Pursuant to Cuyler, a conflict must be actual, not merely speculative; the mere possibility of conflict of interest does not constitute a Sixth Amendment violation. Id.; McConico v. Alabama, 919 F.2d 1543, 1546 (11th Cir.1990); Smith v. White, 815 F.2d 1401, 1404 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 863, 108 S.Ct. 181, 98 L.Ed.2d 133 (1987).

The Petitioner contends that, even if the inquiry into the potential conflict was sufficient to satisfy the standard outlined in Holloway, an actual conflict of interest rendered his trial counsel’s assistance ineffective pursuant to Cuyler. The Eleventh Circuit has adopted the following test to determine whether actual conflict can be found:

We will not find an actual conflict unless [the defendant] can point to specific instances in the record to suggest an actual conflict or impairment of [her interest]. The defendant must make a factual showing of inconsistent interests and must demonstrate that the attorney made a choice between possible alternative courses of action, such as eliciting (or failing to elicit) evidence that favors an interest in competition with that of the defendant. If [the attorney] did not make such a choice, the conflict remained hypothetical.

Buenoano, 74 F.3d at 1086 n. 6 (quoting Smith v. White, 815 F.2d 1401, 1404 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 863, 108 S.Ct. 181, 98 L.Ed.2d 133 (1987)) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). I conclude, as did the Supreme Court of Georgia both on direct appeal and on appeal of the Petitioner’s state habeas claim, that the Petitioner has failed to show an actual conflict or any adverse effect that such a conflict actually had on trial counsel’s performance. As the Supreme Court of Georgia’s holding was neither contrary to established federal law, nor an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence available to the state court, the Petitioner’s claim for relief is properly-denied.

D. Claim TV — Mental Retardation

The Petitioner contends that he is mentally retarded and is,' therefore, pursuant to Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), and the Eighth Amendment, ineligible for the death penalty. He challenges the Georgia statute governing determinations of mental retardation, both generally and as applied by the state habeas courts. The statute, O.C.G.A. § 17-7-131, outlines the requirements governing findings of mental retardation in Georgia state courts. A defendant may be found “guilty but mentally retarded” — and thereby ineligible for the death penalty pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 17 — 7—131(j)—if the court “finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged and is mentally retarded.” O.C.G.A. § 17-7-131(c). The Petitioner contends that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins, requires this Court to hold the Georgia statute unconstitutional, as the Georgia procedure requires the criminal defendant to bear the burden of proving that he is mentally retarded. In Atkins, the Supreme Court established a federal constitutional prohibition on the execution of the mentally retarded. Atkins, 536 U.S. at 321, 122 S.Ct. 2242. The Court, however, specifically stated that it would “leave to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon the execution of its sentences.” Id. at 317, 122 S.Ct. 2242 (quoting Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 416-17, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986)). Included in this mandate is the procedure for determination of a defendant’s mental retardation. Id. at 317, 122 S.Ct. 2242; see also Morrison v. State, 276 Ga. 829, 834-35, 583 S.E.2d 873 (2003). The. Petitioner correctly notes that the burden on a criminal defendant to prove mental retardation is more onerous in Georgia than in many other states.. However, the Court in Atkins makes it abundantly clear that each state is permitted to design its own system for determining mental retardation, insofar as such system does not wholly erode the constitutional prohibition against execution of the mentally retarded. The Petitioner fails to persuade this Court that Georgia’s statute so erodes this prohibition.

Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 17-7-131(a)(3) (and consistent with Atkins), Georgia defines the “mentally retarded” as persons “having significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning resulting in or associated with impairments in adaptive behavior which manifested during the developmental period.” The state habeas court rejected the Petitioner’s Atkins claim, noting that the Petitioner provided no concrete evidence to demonstrate that he fell within the scope of the definition of mental retardation. (Resp’t Ex. 59 at 18.) The Supreme Court of Georgia also rejected the claim, citing numerous tests and records indicating that the Petitioner’s mental function, while below average, did not render him mentally retarded. Head v. Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 411-13, 554 S.E.2d 155. The Supreme Court of Georgia held that “[i]n light of the weak nature of Ferrell’s habeas evidence and the credible conflicting evidence suggesting that he does not satisfy the Georgia statutory definition of ‘mentally retarded,’ ... the habe-as court did not err by finding that Ferrell had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was' mentally retarded.” Id. at 413, 554 S.E.2d 155. The Petitioner has failed to offer any evidence that the state habeas court and the Supreme Court of Georgia’s conclusions were based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented, in those proceedings. Thus, the Petitioner’s Atkins claim fails.

E. Claim V — Ineffectiveness of Appellate Counsel

The Petitioner alleges that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel as a result of his appellate counsel’s failure to investigate and present evidence proving trial counsel’s ineffectiveness at the guilt-innocence phase of his trial. He identifies thirteen distinct errors made by trial counsel during the guilt-innocence phase of his trial, and he contends that appellate counsel failed to p