Opinion ID: 1129443
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Inform of Constitutional Right to Testify

Text: Morris also asserts that trial counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase in failing to inform him of his right to testify. Morris asserts that although he testified in the guilt phase, neither the trial judge nor trial counsel explained to him that he could testify in the penalty phase. Morris contends that by failing to advise him of his right to testify, trial counsel unilaterally waived Morris's right guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A criminal defendant's right to testify is a fundamental right under both the Florida and United States Constitutions. See Deaton v. Dugger, 635 So.2d 4, 8 (Fla.1993). This right is personal to the defendant and cannot be waived either by the trial court or by defense counsel. United States v. Teague, 953 F.2d 1525, 1532 (11th Cir.1992). In order to waive this right, a defendant must make a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver. See Deaton, 635 So.2d at 8. However, the right to testify does not fall within the category of fundamental rights which must be waived on the record by the defendant himself. Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So.2d 403, 410-11 (Fla.1988); see also Davis, 875 So.2d at 368. This Court has determined that the trial court is not obligated to specifically inform the defendant of the right to testify at trial. See Occhicone v. State, 570 So.2d 902, 905 (Fla.1990); Torres-Arboledo, 524 So.2d at 411 n. 2. Unlike the trial court, defense counsel does have an obligation to inform the defendant of his or her right to testify. In order to establish a claim of ineffective assistance based upon trial counsel's failure to inform a defendant of the right to testify, both the deficiency and prejudice prongs of Strickland must be satisfied. See Monlyn v. State, 894 So.2d 832, 837 (Fla.2004) (requiring defendant claiming ineffective assistance from failure to advise him of right to testify to satisfy both prongs of Strickland ); Oisorio v. State, 676 So.2d 1363, 1364-65 (Fla. 1996) (same). In Teague, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals elaborated on the importance of trial counsel's obligation to inform the defendant of his or her right to testify: Defense counsel bears the primary responsibility for advising the defendant of his right to testify or not to testify, the strategic implications of each choice, and that it is ultimately for the defendant himself to decide. This advice is crucial because there can be no effective waiver of a fundamental constitutional right unless there is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938) (emphasis added). Moreover, if counsel believes that it would be unwise for the defendant to testify, counsel may, and indeed should, advise the client in the strongest possible terms not to testify. The defendant can then make the choice of whether to take the stand with the advice of competent counsel. 953 F.2d at 1533 (footnotes omitted) (parallel citations omitted). The Eleventh Circuit further explained that [w]here the defendant claims a violation of his right to testify by defense counsel, the essence of the claim is that the action or inaction of the attorney deprived the defendant of the ability to choose whether or not to testify in his own behalf. In other words, by not protecting the defendant's right to testify, defense counsel's performance fell below the constitutional minimum, thereby violating the first prong of the Strickland test. For example, ... if defense counsel never informed the defendant of the right to testify, and that the ultimate decision belongs to the defendant, counsel would have neglected the vital professional responsibility of ensuring that the defendant's right to testify is protected and that any waiver of that right is knowing and voluntary. Under such circumstances, defense counsel has not acted `within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases,' and the defendant clearly has not received reasonably effective assistance of counsel. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 (quoting McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 770-71 (1970)). Teague, 953 F.2d at 1534 (parallel citations omitted). During the evidentiary hearing on this claim, trial counsel Dimmig and Howardene Garrett testified that they had pretrial discussions with Morris concerning whether he would testify at trial. Dimmig testified that during these discussions he advised Morris of his right to testify but that he was unsure whether Morris understood that this meant he had a right to testify at both the guilt and penalty phases. Garrett was unable to recall whether she discussed with Morris his right to testify at the penalty phase of his trial. Morris testified at the evidentiary hearing that although he recalled Garrett asking him whether he wanted to testify during the guilt phase, neither Garrett nor Dimmig advised him of his right to testify in both phases of his trial. We need not determine whether there was deficient performance because we conclude that any failure to advise Morris that he had the right to testify during the penalty phase does not undermine our confidence in the death sentence and thus did not prejudice Morris. During the penalty phase, Garrett presented the testimony of twelve witnesses who collectively testified as to the circumstances of Morris's upbringing, including that Morris's mother was young when Morris was born and that she used drugs and made him steal. There was also testimony concerning the physical and psychological abuse Morris suffered and witnessed as a child. Further, these witnesses testified regarding Morris's educational background, his abuse of drugs, and the role he has played in his family's life as an adult. In addition to these witnesses, Garrett presented the testimony of Dr. Dee who testified regarding Morris's childhood and how it affected him, Morris's abuse of drugs, his diagnosis as having an ulcer as a youth, and his IQ level. At the evidentiary hearing, Morris did not dispute the testimony of any of these witnesses or offer any other evidence beyond that presented during the penalty phase. When asked what his testimony would have been had he testified at the penalty phase, Morris responded, I would have answered whatever questions they asked me. Morris stated that he would have also testified as to his upbringing, how he felt when his mother made him steal, and how he came to be diagnosed with ulcers. Morris further stated that he would have reaffirmed his innocence. It is questionable whether the jury would have found Morris's testimony credible, especially as to his protestations of innocence. Garrett testified at the evidentiary hearing that she considered the fact that the jury did not believe Morris's guilt-phase testimony in determining not to call him to testify in the penalty phase. Based on Morris's diminished credibility and the fact that his testimony would have been cumulative to the extensive mitigation evidence presented at the penalty phase, we conclude that any failure by trial counsel to inform Morris of his right to testify in the penalty phase does not undermine this Court's confidence in the outcome of the trial. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief as to this claim.