presenting or at least arguing this evidence. Id. Significantly, the court stated, “[WJhile the facts of this case are bad enough to disturb even a jaded observer, they do not reach the level of those in cases where the aggravating facts were so overwhelmingly horrifying that it was highly improbable that mitigating factors of any ordinary stripe would help.” Id. at 1271. The Smith court determined that “the failure to even attempt to persuade the sentencing judge, through evidence or argument, that he should grant Smith leniency” was ineffective. Id. at 1269. Equally in Pizzuto’s case, the facts were not so extreme that there was no hope for mitigating them such that defense counsels’ abandonment of the available evidence was reasonably justified. See also Mayfield, 270 F.3d at 929 (<HOLDING>). Further, Pizzuto has demonstrated that
holding that even if the alleged failure to present mitigating evidence was an oversight and not a tactical choice by counsel it was harmless holding that the evidence that the defendant violated a probation condition was not competent and substantial because the state presented only hearsay evidence holding trial counsels failure to investigate and present substantial mitigation evidence during the sentencing phase can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel holding that defendant was prejudiced at sentencing phase by counsels failure to discover and present any available mitigating evidence concerning defendants impoverished childhood epileptic seizures and organic brain damage holding that mayfield was prejudiced by his defense counsels failure to present all the available mitigating evidence although the aggravating evidence against mayfield was strong and the mitigation evidence presented  was substantial