unprofessional errors, the result of elevant mitigating evidence is heightened at a capital sentencing hearing because “[t]he Constitution prohibits imposition of the death penalty without adequate consideration of factors which might evoke mercy.” Caro, 165 F.3d at 1227 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although counsel’s duty to seek out evidence of mitigation is not limitless, the Supreme Court has recognized that the failure to pursue avenues of readily available information — such as school records, juvenile court and probation reports, and hospital records — may constitute deficient performance. Rompil-la v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374,-, 125 S.Ct. 2456, 2463, 162 L.Ed.2d 360 (2005); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 396, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court has also made clear that
holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus failed to preserve the issue for appellate review holding that counsel failed to fulfill their obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of the defendants background for purposes of sentencing and thus failed to uncover voluminous evidence of a nightmarish childhood in juvenile court records holding counsel was ineffective where counsel failed to contact defendant in preparing for sentencing hearing failed to present mitigation witnesses and failed in closing argument to offer any reason other than blatant disregard of illinois law for sparing halls life holding that party waived conflicts of law issue because it failed to fulfill its obligation under rule 441 to provide the district court with reasonable notice of his intention to raise an issue of foreign law holding fundamental error occurred because the trial court failed to inquire thoroughly whether the juvenile understood her right to counsel and had the capacity to intelligently choose to waive counsel and failed to obtain the required verified written waiver