context: We find no error in the trial court's determination that Gaskin has not suffered prejudice from counsel's alleged deficient performance. As the trial court noted, because Dr. Krop testified at the eviden-tiary hearing that his diagnosis of Gaskin would have changed little if counsel had given him Gaskin's school records, Gaskin has not met his burden of showing that but for counsel's alleged deficiency, the result of the penalty phase would have been different.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 692 So.2d 874, 877
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that because the psychologists testified that their opinions would remain unchanged even considering the additional information, there was not a reasonable probability that the result of the penalty phase would have been different
citation_a.sentence: See Breedlove v. State, 692 So.2d 874, 877 (Fla.1997) (holding that because the psychologists testified that their opinions would remain unchanged even considering the additional information, there was not a reasonable probability that the result of the penalty phase would have been different); see also Brown v. State, 755 So.2d 616, 636 (Fla.2000) (holding that trial counsel’s performance was not deficient for failing to give a mental health expert additional information because the expert testified at the evidentiary hearing that the collateral data would not have changed his testimony).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 755 So.2d 616, 636
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that trial counsel's performance was not deficient for failing to give a mental health expert additional information because the expert testified at the evidentiary hearing that the collateral data would not have changed his testimony
citation_b.sentence: See Breedlove v. State, 692 So.2d 874, 877 (Fla.1997) (holding that because the psychologists testified that their opinions would remain unchanged even considering the additional information, there was not a reasonable probability that the result of the penalty phase would have been different); see also Brown v. State, 755 So.2d 616, 636 (Fla.2000) (holding that trial counsel’s performance was not deficient for failing to give a mental health expert additional information because the expert testified at the evidentiary hearing that the collateral data would not have changed his testimony).