is error. Such error, however, does not automatically require reversal unless it is shown that, but for counsel’s errors, there is a reasonable probability that the sentence would have been different. When reviewing a claim of ineffectiveness based upon failing to present adequate mitigating evidence, we must view the totality of the evidence — both that adduced at trial and that adduced in the postconviction proceeding. Thus, it is undisputed that the guarantee of effective assistance of counsel clearly encompasses the penalty phase of á criminal trial, and this court has recognized that the failure to present any testimony during the mitigation phase of the trial fails to pass constitutional muster. See, e.g., Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Smith, 368 Ark. 620, 249
holding counsel ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence holding that trial counsels failure to call defendants family members as witnesses during penalty phase was reasonable trial strategy and not ineffective assistance of counsel holding trial counsel ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of the appellants good conduct in prison holding that counsels failure to investigate the defendants personal and psychiatric history constituted ineffective assistance during the penalty phase but not during the guilt phase holding trial counsels failure to investigate and present substantial mitigation evidence during the sentencing phase can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel