Opinion ID: 1587789
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The right to waive appeal in a capital case in Louisiana

Text: The United States Supreme Court has not expressly held whether the Eighth Amendment does or does not permit a defendant to waive appellate review in a capital case. The Court has held that third parties may not intervene in a competent defendant's decision to terminate further legal proceedings in his case after he has been sentenced to death. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 109 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990); Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012, 97 S.Ct. 436, 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976). The Court has thereby pretermitted the question of whether the Eighth Amendment allows the execution of death row inmates who had not had their convictions and sentences reviewed by any appellate court on grounds that the third party interveners have no standing to assert an Eighth Amendment claim that a defendant may not waive state appellate review in a capital case in which the state courts have expressly determined that defendant has the capacity to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to appellate review. See Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 155, 110 S.Ct. at 1723 (Our threshold inquiry into standing in no way depends on the merits of the [petitioner's] contention that a particular conduct is illegal, and we thus put aside for now Whitmore's Eighth Amendment challenge....)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The majority in Whitmore thereby rejected the view of the dissent that [g]iven the extraordinary circumstances of this case ... consideration of whether federal common law precludes Jonas Whitmore's standing as Ronald Simmons' next friend should be informed by a consideration of the merits of Whitmore's claim.... Our cases and state courts' experience with capital cases compel the conclusion that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require appellate review of at least death sentences to prevent unjust executions.... The core concern of all our death penalty decisions is that States take steps to ensure to the greatest extent possible that no person is wrongfully executed. Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 167-71, 110 S.Ct. at 1729-32 (Marshall, J., dissenting). However, although it has not resolved the larger Eighth Amendment question and has thus left the states free to provide their own answers, the Supreme Court has also recognized at least in principle that a competent defendant's decision to forego appellate review in a capital case may reflect a rational act of self-determination despite its potential consequences. Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 314, 86 S.Ct. 1505, 1506, 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1966)(in aid of its certiorari jurisdiction, Court remands the case to the district court to determine Rees' mental condition and to report back to the Court on the question of whether he has capacity to appreciate his position and make a rational choice with respect to continuing or abandoning further litigation or on the other hand whether he is suffering from a mental disease, disorder, or defect which may substantially affect his capacity in the premises.). In the present case, we need not resolve the Eighth Amendment question left open in Whitmore whether a defendant may entirely forego appellate review of his capital conviction and sentence because the Louisiana legislature has provided for sentence review in every capital case in which a defendant has actually been sentenced to death and has thereby provided the appropriate procedure for cases in which the defendant otherwise waives his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. As an initial matter, we agree with defendant that while La. Const. art. I,  19 guarantees that [n]o person shall be subjected to imprisonment or forfeiture of rights or property without the right of judicial review, the article also provides without qualification that this right may be intelligently waived. The right of waiver is personal to the defendant, State v. Marcell, 320 So.2d 195, 198 (La.1975), and the waiver must be an informed one. State v. Simmons, 390 So.2d 504, 506 (La.1980). Thus, while a defendant  may appeal to the supreme court from a judgment in a capital case in which a sentence of death actually has been imposed, La. C. Cr. P. art. 912.1(A) (emphasis added), he is not required to do so. In this respect, Louisiana does not follow the law in other capital jurisdictions in which an appeal is mandatory. See, e.g., Deering's California Codes, Penal Code Ann.2008  1239(b)(When upon any plea a judgment of death is rendered, an appeal is automatically taken by the defendant without any action by him or her or his or her counsel.); Fla.Stat.Ann.  921.141(4)(West 2006)(The judgment of conviction and sentence of death shall be subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court of Florida and disposition rendered within 2 years after the filing of a notice of appeal.). Thus, in a capital case as in any other case, a defendant in Louisiana possesses the right to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to direct appeal as he may waive any other constitutional right relating to the trial of criminal cases. [4] See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 183, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 2798, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990)(We have been unyielding in our insistence that a defendant's waiver of his trial rights cannot be given effect unless it is `knowing' and `intelligent.')(citing Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 574-75, 107 S.Ct. 851, 857-58, 93 L.Ed.2d 954 (1987); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938)); see also Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 165, 110 S.Ct. at 1728 (prerequisite for next friend standing, that the real party in interest is unable to litigate his own cause due to mental incapacity, lack of access to court, or other similar disability .... is not satisfied where an evidentiary hearing shows that the defendant has given a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his right to proceed, and his access to court is otherwise unimpeded.)(citing Gilmore ); cf. Franz v. State, 296 Ark. 181, 754 S.W.2d 839, 843 (1988)(waiver of capital appeal valid only if defendant has the capacity to understand the choice between life and death and to knowingly and intelligently waive any and all rights to appeal his sentence.); Geary v. State, 115 Nev. 79, 977 P.2d 344, 346 (1999)(defendant's decision to waive review of his capital sentence must be shown to be intelligently made and with full comprehension of its ramifications.); State v. Sagastegui, 135 Wash.2d 67, 83, 954 P.2d 1311, 1320 (1998)(valid waiver of capital appeal if defendant has the capacity to understand the choice between life and death and to knowingly and intelligently forgo any and all rights to appeal his sentence)(citing Whitmore ). However, as defendant acknowledged in arguing his motion before the trial court at formal sentencing, his unqualified right to intelligently waive his right of review as a matter of La. Const. art. I,  19, does not encompass or discharge this Court's independent duty imposed by La. C. Cr. P. art. 905.9 to review every death sentence returned in Louisiana for excessiveness according to rules adopted by the Court as necessary to satisfy constitutional criteria for review. Article 905.9 originated in 1976 La. Acts 694, and the legislature thereby placed on this Court the duty to review a sentence of death for excessiveness nearly three years before this Court decided as a general matter that La. Const. Art. I,  20, which prohibits cruel, excessive or unusual punishment, made the excessiveness of a sentence ... a question of law reviewable under the appellate jurisdiction of this court. State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762, 764 (La.1979). Pursuant to art. 905.9, this Court adopted its Rule 28 providing for criteria for reviewing a death sentence for excessiveness, including consideration of whether the sentence was imposed under the influence of any arbitrary factors, see State v. Thibodeaux, 98-1673, p. 15 (La.9/8/99), 750 So.2d 916, 928 (In the context of Rule 28 review, the existence of an arbitrary factor requires this court to find an error of such magnitude that it undermines confidence in the jury's sentencing verdict.), and whether the evidence supports the jury's finding of at least one aggravating circumstance. The latter inquiry that will invariably entail a finding of whether the evidence also supported the jury's finding of guilt because of Louisiana's procedure of double counting aggravating factors at the guilt and sentencing stages. See Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231, 108 S.Ct. 546, 98 L.Ed.2d 568 (1988)(Louisiana's scheme of duplicating aggravating circumstances in the guilt and sentencing states of a capital trial does not violate the Eighth Amendment because it sufficiently narrows the class of offender eligible for capital punishment). The criteria in Rule 28 provide this Court with the means of satisfying Eighth Amendment concerns raised by a defendant's waiver of appellate review of his conviction and sentence of death in this state by safeguarding] a defendant's right not to suffer cruel and unusual punishment, and by protect[ing] society's fundamental interest in ensuring that the coercive power of the State is not employed in a manner that shocks the community's conscience or undermines the integrity of our criminal justice system. Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 171-72, 110 S.Ct. at 1731-32 (Marshall, J., dissenting). Louisiana thus belongs in the overwhelming majority of other state capital jurisdictions in which some measure of appellate review is accorded a defendant in every capital case, including Arkansas, which changed its rule after Whitmore to require review of both the guilt and sentencing stages of trial for fundamental error despite defendant's waiver of his appeal. Newman v. State, 350 Ark. 51, 84 S.W.3d 443 (2002); State v. Robbins, 339 Ark. 379, 5 S.W.3d 51 (1999); see U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bull., Capital Punishment, 2005 (Dec. 2005). Within that consensus in capital jurisdictions are states, such as California and Florida, in which an appeal is automatic, and other states which permit waiver of direct appeal and confine appellate review to the equivalent of Rule 28 review. See, e.g., Patterson v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 301, 551 S.E.2d 332, 335 (2001)(While a defendant may waive his rights of appellate review and instruct his attorneys to refrain from seeking a commutation of his death sentence, a defendant may not waive the review process mandated by Code  17.1-313(C), the purpose of which is to assure the fair and proper application of the death penalty statutes in this Commonwealth and to instill public confidence in the administration of justice.)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Pennell v. State, 604 A.2d 1368, 1375 (Del.1992)(knowing and intelligent waiver of appellate rights in capital case did not forego review of death sentence); State v. Sagastegui, 135 Wash.2d at 82-83, 954 P.2d at 1319 (competent defendant may waive appellate review but not mandatory sentence review under Wash. Rev.Code Ann.  10.95.130 (West 2002)). While a defendant convicted of first degree murder and actually sentenced to death has the same right as any other defendant to waive direct appeal of his conviction and sentence, the unique severity of capital punishment requires unique procedures for assuring that any waiver is made knowingly and intelligently. In Whitmore, the Court noted that the Supreme Court of Arkansas required a competency hearing as a matter of state law and that the court had affirmed the trial court's finding that the capital inmate had `the capacity to understand the choice between life and death and to knowingly and intelligently waive any and all rights to appeal his sentence.' Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 165, 110 S.Ct. at 1728 (citation omitted). The Supreme Court further observed, consistent with its decision in Rees, that [a]lthough we are not here faced with the question of whether a hearing on mental competency is required by the United States Constitution whenever a capital defendant desires to terminate further proceedings, such a hearing will obviously bear on whether the defendant is able to proceed on his own behalf. Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 165, 110 S.Ct. at 1728. When this Court remanded this case in May, 2007, for a determination of defendant's competency to waive appeal, we explicitly cited to Rees and Whitmore in support of finding that the sanity commission authorized by La. C. Cr. P. art. 644, although designed primarily to determine a defendant's competency to stand trial, also provides a suitable vehicle for determining whether a defendant is competent to waive his direct appeal rights in a capital case in which he has been sentenced to death or whether he suffers from a mental disease, disorder, or defect which may substantially affect his capacity, to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of appellate review. Rees, 384 U.S. at 314, 86 S.Ct. at 1506; cf. State v. Dunn, 07-0878 (La.1/25/08), 974 So.2d 658 (retaining procedures set out in State v. Williams, 01-1650 (La.11/1/02), 831 So.2d 835, including appointment of a sanity commissions, for resolving claims raised in a post-verdict, post-sentencing stage of a capital case that defendant is mentally retarded and so exempt from capital punishment under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002)). When a defendant asserts that he is eligible for execution because he has terminated all further legal proceedings, the consequences of an erroneous determination of his competency to make that decision are so severe that the record of the proceedings conducted on the sanity commission's findings must show by clear and convincing evidence that he has the capacity to make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his right to appellate review of his capital conviction and sentence of death.