Smith had not presented at trial. Although Everett did present an expert, Dr. Umesh Mhatre, who opined that Everett’s drug use made him paranoid and that such paranoia was likely a factor in his violent behavior on the date of the crime, even Dr. Mhatre stated that his opinion was based solely on Everett’s statements and did not opine that the paranoia rose to the level of statutory mental health mitigation. To establish prejudice, Everett has the burden of showing that counsel’s ineffectiveness “deprived [him] of a reliable penalty phase proceeding.” Davis v. State, 990 So.2d 459, 471 (Fla.2008) (alteration in original) (quoting Asay v. State, 769 So.2d 974, 985 (Fla.2000)); see also Rutherford v. State, 727 So.2d 216, 223 (Fla.1998). Everett did not do so. See Davis, 990 So.2d at 471 (<HOLDING>). b. No Male Role Model and an Unstable
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 that trial court had discretion to admit relevant photographs in penalty phase holding that mental health evidence could be mitigating at the penalty phase even though it is insufficient to establish a legal defense to conviction in the guilty phase holding that for habeas relief to be granted based on constitutional error in capital penalty phase error must have had substantial and injurious effect on the jurys verdict in the penalty phase holding that where much of evidence davis alleged should have been presented was in fact presented during penalty phase davis had not shown that counsels ineffectiveness deprived him of reliable penalty phase