James Hitchcock v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, 745 F.3d 476

Hitchcock, a Florida inmate, was sentenced to death for the 1976 strangulation murder of his brother’s 13-year-old stepdaughter.
He sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his latest resentencing (1996) after the Florida courts previously rejected similar challenges to prior resentencings.
At the 1996 resentencing, the state offered a life sentence in exchange for a guilty plea to first-degree murder, which Hitchcock rejected; the court did not admit or consider this plea offer as mitigating evidence.
Hitchcock alleged ineffective assistance of resentencing counsel for failing to elicit from Dr. Toomer the applicability of two statutory mitigating factors and for not pursuing a neuropsychological evaluation for brain damage.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief on ineffective-assistance grounds, finding no prejudice given substantial mitigation and weighty aggravators, and that brain-damage evidence was speculative.
The district court denied the habeas petition but granted COA on the plea-offer mitigation issue and on the two ineffective-assistance claims; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exclusion of the plea offer as mitigation violated Lockett	Hitchcock asserts the plea offer was relevant mitigation evidence that the sentencer should have considered.	Hitchcock's view that the plea offer bears on culpability is not supported; the offer does not reflect character, record, or circumstances of the offense.	No constitutional obligation to admit the plea offer; denial affirmed.
Ineffective assistance for failing to elicit statutory mitigating factors	Counsel failed to elicit whether extreme mental or emotional disturbance and substantial impairment applied, prejudicing Hitchcock.	Even if deficient, there was no reasonable probability of a different outcome given extensive mitigating evidence and strong aggravators.	No reasonable probability of different result; state court decision not unreasonable.
Ineffective assistance for not pursuing neuropsychological evaluation	Counsel should have obtained neuropsych testing to uncover possible brain damage as mitigation.	Evidence was speculative and outweighed by aggravating factors; no prejudice shown.	No reasonable likelihood of lesser sentence; claim denied.

Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978) (mitigation broadly required)
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) (consideration of background and circumstances)
Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164 (1988) (limits on reconsideration of residual doubts at sentencing)
Guzek v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 517 (2006) (not a right to present innocence evidence at sentencing)
Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (2009) (AEDPA review and alternative holdings)