his release from prison and the killing for which he received a death sentence that the jury knew nothing about. Given the psychologists’ testimony [at the 3.850 hearing] that Mills’ mental problems boiled down to being impulsive, it is purely speculative that the currently tendered evidence would have carried sufficient weight to abrogate the judge’s override of the jury recommendation. 603 So.2d at 486. The trial court also considered evidence of Mills’s childhood through testimony of his family members and the presentence investigation report. We hold that the district court correctly concluded that the failure of Mills’s lawyers to present mental health evidence as mitigating evidence and then- failure to seek mitigating evidence did not prejudice him. See Routly, 33 F.3d at 1297 (<HOLDING>). E. Felony Murder Aggravating Factor Mills
holding that the postconviction court is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses holding it insufficient when the sentencing judge only questioned defendant on certain aspects of the presentence report holding that the record must reflect both that the district judge considered the defendants argument and that the judge explained the basis for rejecting it holding that a defendant was not entitled to a relief under section 2255 when he asserted that the sentencing judge who was not the trial judge was influenced by the sentence imposed by the trial judge on a codefendant holding that the petitioner could not show prejudice because the essence of the mitigation evidence that he argued was before the judge through the presentence investigation report and his mental health experts testimony and the judge referred to it specifically in the sentencing order further the same judge and the florida supreme court held that the mitigation evidence would not have changed the result