He must like being a professional expert. How much money has he made of the system? to damn much.
DJERF v. SCHRIRO
United States District Court, D. Arizona.
September 29, 2008.
Dr. McMahon was responsible for compiling the results of testing obtained by all three mental health professionals. (RT 3/12/96 at 13-15.) The court set April 22, 1996, as the deadline for submission of his final report. (RT 4/9/96 at 5.) On April 19, 1996, Dr. McMahon compiled the mental health reports and faxed trial counsel his conclusion that Petitioner suffered from an antisocial personality disorder. (ROA-PCR, Am.Pet., Ex. D.) Dr. McMahon specifically rejected a diagnosis of schizophrenia and rejected any diagnosis that Petitioner suffered from any mental health issue that precluded his ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his behavior or resulted in an inability to conform his behavior to the requirement of the law. (Id.) On April 23, 1996, trial counsel notified the court they would not be utilizing either Dr. McMahon's report or his testimony at sentencing. (RT 4/23/96 at 2.) Trial counsel requested and the court established a deadline for Dr. Walter to submit a final report. (Id. at 5.) However, there is no record of Dr. Walter completing and submitting such a report.
PCR proceedings
Petitioner presented Claim Four during his PCR proceedings. (ROA-PCR, Am. Pet. at 14-15.) Prior to filing his amended PCR petition, Petitioner sought and obtained appointment of a mental health expert, Dr. Richard Samuels. On two occasions, the PCR court granted contact visits for Dr. Samuels to perform mental health testing upon Petitioner. (ROA-PCR, Orders, 9/11/00 & 12/8/00.) Even though Dr. Samuels conducted a neuropsychological examination of Petitioner, PCR counsel did not submit any expert report in support of Claim Four.
Ultimately, the PCR court concluded that Petitioner had not established a colorable IAC claim and summarily dismissed the claim without granting an evidentiary hearing. (ROA-PCR, Order, 6/14/01.) The court explained:
The only evidence defendant presents to support this claim are psychiatric and psychological evaluations of defendant done either before the entry of the plea or before sentencing. Based on these numerous reports, which were available and considered by the court prior to sentencing, defendant simply speculates that there might be other mitigating information that should have been presented. This showing does not constitute a colorable claim for relief.
(Id.) Regarding the allegation that trial counsel failed to conduct an adequate social and family history investigation, the PCR court stated that "[Petitioner] has failed to present any evidence to support this claim; instead, he simply speculates that if his childhood was investigated, some mitigating evidence might have been discovered." (Id.)
Analysis
lease: 
