Opinion ID: 2486429
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: McCRAY's Limitation of Mitigating Evidence

Text: Next, McCRAY essentially argues that the trial court failed to abide by the procedures set forth by this Court in Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343, 363-65 (Fla.2001), when McCRAY chose to limit defense counsel's presentation of mitigating evidence during the penalty phase. It is well established that a competent defendant may waive his right to present mitigating evidence in the penalty phase of his first-degree murder trial. Ocha v. State, 826 So.2d 956, 961 (Fla.2002). Nevertheless, in Muhammad, this Court set out several procedural safeguards for trial courts to apply when the defendant is not challenging the imposition of the death penalty and refuses to present mitigation evidence. 782 So.2d at 363. Since Muhammad, this Court has made clear that a trial court is required to implement the Muhammad safeguards only in cases where there is a complete waiver of all mitigation and not where a defendant decides to simply limit mitigation. See Eaglin v. State, 19 So.3d 935, 945-46 (Fla. 2009) (recognizing that this Court draws a distinction between the waiver of the right to present mitigation and the decision to limit mitigation and noting that the extension of a trial court's Muhammad duties applies only to cases in which there is a complete waiver of all mitigation); Boyd v. State, 910 So.2d 167, 188-89 (Fla. 2005) (concluding that defendant who testified during the penalty phase and also allowed his pastor to testify did not waive all mitigation but only limited the matters presented on mitigation and therefore Muhammad was inapplicable). In this case, McCRAY did not waive all mitigation. Although McCRAY prohibited counsel from presenting the testimony of two expert witnesses who could have assisted in establishing mental mitigation, McCRAY did permit counsel to allow four family members and the mother of his children to testify. For that reason, we conclude that Muhammad is inapplicable to this case and reject all aspects of this claim of error.