further investigation because the informa tion available to trial counsel did not alert them to investigate further. We will not find counsel ineffective for failing to produce mitigating evidence relative to an alleged mental infirmity when counsel had no reason to suspect that the defendant might have such an infirmity. Washington, 927 A tiveness for failing to investigate, develop, and present evidence regarding four instances of good conduct in prison. First, after years of incarceration, Appellant had established that he was able to reside in prison with no instances of misconduct. He asserts that counsel could have discovered this fact by simply calling the Department of Corrections (DOC) and requesting Appellant’s records. See Hall v. Washington, 106 F.3d 742, 752 (7th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Second, Appellant helped save the life of a
holding trial counsel ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of the appellants good conduct in prison holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel holding trial counsels failure to investigate and present substantial mitigation evidence during the sentencing phase can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel holding counsel ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence holding that defendant failed to show that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate the case because record demonstrated that counsel did in fact prepare for trial and interview witnesses