Opinion ID: 4587745
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mitigation Presentation

Text: In his first mitigation-related challenge, Craft argues that the trial court erred in accepting his waiver of the right to present mitigation. “The standard by which [this Court] review[s] a trial court’s acceptance of a death penalty defendant’s waiver of the right to present mitigating evidence is whether the court abused its discretion.” Robertson v. State, 187 So. 3d 1207, 1212 (Fla. 2016). However, Craft’s case does not involve a waiver of the right to present mitigation because - 12 - Craft presented the testimony of four family members and also made his own statement during the penalty-phase proceeding. Cf. Boyd v. State, 910 So. 2d 167, 188 (Fla. 2005) (“Boyd did not ultimately waive his right to present mitigation. After discussing matters with his friends and family, Boyd elected to testify during the penalty phase and allowed his pastor to testify.”). Although the mitigation presented through Craft was limited, and although Craft stated that he was calling his family members to testify “[f]or their conscience purposes” and further said that the purpose of his own penalty-phase statement was “to clear everything up,” the trial court would have abused its discretion had it not considered the believable and uncontroverted mitigation presented through these witnesses. See Robinson v. State, 684 So. 2d 175, 177 (Fla. 1996) (“It is well settled that mitigating evidence must be considered and weighed when contained anywhere in the record, to the extent it is believable and uncontroverted.”). We refuse to find a waiver of the right to present mitigation in a case where the defendant actually presented mitigation. Cf. Boyd, 910 So. 2d at 188. Nor did the trial court err in accepting Craft’s limited mitigation presentation. We have consistently held that, “in the final analysis, all competent defendants have a right to control their own destinies,” including with respect to the presentation of mitigation. Hamblen v. State, 527 So. 2d 800, 804 (Fla. 1988). Moreover, the record reflects several instances in which the trial court discussed - 13 - mitigation and its importance with Craft, and based on Craft’s representations that he would not present mitigation, before conducting the penalty phase, the trial court ordered a PSI. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.710(b) (“Should a defendant in a capital case choose not to challenge the death penalty and refuse to present mitigation evidence, the court shall refer the case to the Department of Corrections for the preparation of a presentence report. The report shall be comprehensive and should include information such as previous mental health problems (including hospitalizations), school records, and relevant family background.”). It is clear from the record that, in addition to considering the unexpected testimony presented by Craft and his family members during the penalty phase, the trial court endeavored to consider available mitigation present elsewhere in the record, including in the PSI and competency evaluations. We find no abuse of discretion.