Donnie Cleveland Lance v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic Prison
706 F. App'x 565
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Donnie Lance was convicted of murdering his ex‑wife and her boyfriend in 1997; the killings were brutal and Lance had a long history of domestic abuse against the victim.
- Trial counsel J. Richardson Brannon, an experienced criminal lawyer, presented an innocence/alibi defense; the defense called no mitigating evidence during the penalty phase.
- Brannon sought court funds for experts and an investigator; the trial court ultimately granted $4,000 for an investigator only; no defense expert testimony was presented at trial.
- Lance later presented neuropsychological evidence in state habeas proceedings showing mild-to-moderate frontal lobe dysfunction, low-average IQ, dementia-like findings, head trauma, and alcohol abuse; the State’s expert testified these impairments were subtle and not significant to the crime.
- The superior court granted habeas relief, vacating the death sentence for ineffective assistance for failing to investigate/present mental-health mitigation; the Georgia Supreme Court reversed, holding any deficiency did not prejudice Lance and that other alleged failures (character evidence, expert‑fund motions) likewise did not prejudice him.
- The federal district court denied § 2254 relief; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, applying Strickland and AEDPA deference and concluding Georgia’s prejudice determinations were reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to investigate/present mental‑health mitigation at penalty phase | Brannon’s lack of investigation prevented presentation of substantial mitigating evidence (head trauma, dementia, frontal‑lobe dysfunction) that likely would have led to life sentence | Even if investigation were deficient, the habeas experts showed only mild impairments; given the crime’s brutality and Lance’s statements/history, there is no reasonable probability the sentence would differ | No prejudice; Georgia Supreme Court’s conclusion that mitigating evidence was insubstantial compared to aggravators was reasonable under AEDPA and Strickland |
| Failure to present character witnesses in mitigation | Brannon should have put on testimony about Lance’s loving parenting and good character | Strategic decision: calling character witnesses would have let State introduce aggravating character evidence; decision was reasonable trial strategy | No ineffective assistance: counsel’s choice was a reasonable strategic decision |
| Inadequate motions/failure to obtain funding for expert witnesses | More/better experts (forensic pathologist, crime‑scene, polygraph, fingerprint) would have undermined State’s case and affected guilt/penalty outcome | Additional expert testimony would not have changed outcome: disputed matters were commonsense or unhelpful; excluded volunteered polygraph was ruled inadmissible | No prejudice: Georgia Supreme Court reasonably found additional experts would not have altered jury’s conclusions |
| Standard of federal review under AEDPA | Lance contends Georgia applied incorrect prejudice standard / misweighed evidence | Court applies Strickland prejudice test and AEDPA deference to state‑court factual and legal determinations | Affirmed: federal court will not grant relief unless state decision was unreasonable; it was not here |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (deference to state court decisions under AEDPA; review doubly deferential when Strickland and §2254(d) both apply)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (counsel’s duty to conduct reasonable mitigation investigation and reweighing mitigating vs. aggravating evidence)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) (example of undiscovered, substantially mitigating evidence warranting relief)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (adequate investigation may reveal extensive mitigation; used as a comparator)
- Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (2009) (mitigating evidence such as combat trauma and brain abnormalities can be highly probative in sentencing)