Rhodes claim in Florida

2008Specifically, Rhodes contends counsel failed to locate and call witnesses who would have testified about Rhodes's abusive childhood. [5] Although *510 we recognize that "the obligation to investigate and prepare for the penalty portion of a capital case cannot be overstated," and that attorneys have a "strict duty to conduct a reasonable investigation of a defendant's background for possible mitigating evidence," Davis v. State, 875 So.2d 359, 369 (Fla.2003) (quoting State v. Lewis, 838 So.2d 1102, 1113 (Fla.2002), and Ragsdale v. State, 798 So.2d 713, 716 (Fla. 2001)), we find Rhodes's claim

2008To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Rhodes must show: (1) that his counsel's performance was deficient—i.e., unreasonable under prevailing professional norms; and (2) that the deficiency prejudiced the defense—i.e., that it undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial by creating "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Valle v. State, 778 So.2d 960, 965-66 (Fla.2001) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 391 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000)); see also Strickland

2008To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Rhodes must show: (1) that his counsel's performance was deficient—i.e., unreasonable under prevailing professional norms; and (2) that the deficiency prejudiced the defense—i.e., that it undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial by creating "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Valle v. State, 778 So.2d 960, 965-66 (Fla.2001) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 391 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000)); see also Strickland

2008Specifically, Rhodes contends counsel failed to locate and call witnesses who would have testified about Rhodes's abusive childhood. [5] Although *510 we recognize that "the obligation to investigate and prepare for the penalty portion of a capital case cannot be overstated," and that attorneys have a "strict duty to conduct a reasonable investigation of a defendant's background for possible mitigating evidence," Davis v. State, 875 So.2d 359, 369 (Fla.2003) (quoting State v. Lewis, 838 So.2d 1102, 1113 (Fla.2002), and Ragsdale v. State, 798 So.2d 713, 716 (Fla. 2001)), we find Rhodes's claim

2008Specifically, Rhodes contends counsel failed to locate and call witnesses who would have testified about Rhodes's abusive childhood. [5] Although *510 we recognize that "the obligation to investigate and prepare for the penalty portion of a capital case cannot be overstated," and that attorneys have a "strict duty to conduct a reasonable investigation of a defendant's background for possible mitigating evidence," Davis v. State, 875 So.2d 359, 369 (Fla.2003) (quoting State v. Lewis, 838 So.2d 1102, 1113 (Fla.2002), and Ragsdale v. State, 798 So.2d 713, 716 (Fla. 2001)), we find Rhodes's claim

2008To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Rhodes must show: (1) that his counsel's performance was deficient—i.e., unreasonable under prevailing professional norms; and (2) that the deficiency prejudiced the defense—i.e., that it undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial by creating "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Valle v. State, 778 So.2d 960, 965-66 (Fla.2001) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 391 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000)); see also Strickland

2001Relying on Rowe v. State, 404 So.2d 1176, 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (holding the trial court “improperly forced the appellant ‘to stand trial before two accusers: the State and his codefendant’ “ (quoting Crum v. State, 398 So.2d 810, 811-12 (Fla.1981)), Mr. Jef-fries contends that he, too, had “to stand trial before two accusers,” that his defense and Mr. Rhodes’s defense were mutually antagonistic, and that consolidation of the two cases likely confused the jury.

2001Relying on Rowe v. State, 404 So.2d 1176, 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (holding the trial court “improperly forced the appellant ‘to stand trial before two accusers: the State and his codefendant’ “ (quoting Crum v. State, 398 So.2d 810, 811-12 (Fla.1981)), Mr. Jef-fries contends that he, too, had “to stand trial before two accusers,” that his defense and Mr. Rhodes’s defense were mutually antagonistic, and that consolidation of the two cases likely confused the jury.