Opinion ID: 2534158
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Waiver of a Penalty Phase Jury, of Investigation Into Mitigation, and of Presentation of Mitigation

Text: The Court reviews a trial court's decision with respect to the waiver of mitigation as a mixed question of law and fact, upholding the court's factual findings if supported by competent, substantial evidence, and reviewing the court's ultimate decision de novo. See, e.g., Mora v. State, 814 So.2d 322 (Fla.2002); Chandler v. State, 702 So.2d 186 (Fla.1997). The Court in Koon v. Dugger, 619 So.2d 246 (Fla. 1993), addressed the issue of waiver of mitigation and set forth the following guidelines: Although we find that no error occurred here, we are concerned with the problems inherent in a trial record that does not adequately reflect a defendant's waiver of his right to present any mitigating evidence. Accordingly, we establish the following prospective rule to be applied in such a situation. When a defendant, against his counsel's advice, refuses to permit the presentation of mitigating evidence in the penalty phase, counsel must inform the court on the record of the defendant's decision. Counsel must indicate whether, based on his investigation, he reasonably believes there to be mitigating evidence that could be presented and what that evidence would be. The court should then require the defendant to confirm on the record that his counsel has discussed these matters with him, and despite counsel's recommendation, he wishes to waive presentation of penalty phase evidence. Koon, 619 So.2d at 250. The Court subsequently explained the Koon rationale thusly: Obviously, our primary reason for requiring this procedure was to ensure that a defendant understood the importance of presenting mitigating testimony, discussed these issues with counsel, and confirmed in open court that he or she wished to waive presentation of mitigating evidence. Only then could the trial court, and this Court, be assured that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived this substantial and important right to show the jury why the death penalty should not be imposed in his or her particular case. Chandler v. State, 702 So.2d 186, 199 (Fla. 1997). Applying the above law to the present case, we conclude that Twilegar has failed to show that the trial court erred with respect to this claim. Prior to trial, defense counsel notified the court of Twilegar's desire to waive a penalty phase jury, to waive investigation into mitigation, and to waive the presentation of mitigation, and the court held hearings and conducted extensive inquiries into these matters. In support of his waivers, Twilegar executed an affidavit wherein he stated that he was invoking his constitutional right to prevent my attorney(s) from presenting mitigating evidence to a penalty phase jury in my defense, and giving the following reasons: (3) I have certain INALIENABLE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, which I believe would be invaded if counsel were allowed to proceed. (4) I believe any mitigating arguments on my behalf by counsel, would be an ADMISSION OF GUILT AND OR LIABILITY which would be in direct violation of my PROSCRIBED RELIGIOUS EDICTS. (5) I HAVE DISCUSSED IN DEPTH these issues with assigned counsel and I am aware of the potential ramifications of not having the benefit of counsel, expert(s) and witnesses testify on my behalf. (6) Further, I understand that any issues I forbid to come forth, are issues that I may be FOREVER BARRED from raising during appeals. At the subsequent hearing, the following exchange took place between the court and defense counsel: THE COURT: Two things, I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, we needed to address. One was Mr. Twilegar's desire to waive the presentation of mitigating evidence? MR. MCLOUGHLIN: And investigation. When the trial court asked Twilegar what he was requesting, he responded: THE DEFENDANT: I'm requesting that my counsel do no investigation for mitigation. Do not prepare for it in any way except just to cover themselves. Whatever is statutory that they have to do because I plan on no mitigation at all. Defense counsel had enlisted both a mitigation specialist, who had discussed mitigation with Twilegar, and a psychiatrist, who had attempted to meet with Twilegar but Twilegar had refused to cooperate. Trial counsel informed the court that Twilegar's background may lead to good mitigation but he could not complete his investigation, and counsel noted a possible good deed done by Mr. Twilegar that we weren't able to further investigate. Twilegar also refused to cooperate with trial counsel's attempt to gather mitigation from family and friends. Counsel stated that hypothetically if he were to present mitigation, he would call as witnesses [p]ossibly his sister, his wife, his mother, and counsel told the court that he had provided Twilegar with updated mitigation materials, and that he, his co-counsel and the mitigation specialist had all discussed the waiver issue with Twilegar but he had remained adamant. Twilegar stated that trial counsel had met with him dozens of times to discuss the mitigation issue and that counsel had recommended every time that mitigation be presented but Twilegar had insisted on waiving both the investigation into mitigation and the presentation of mitigation, stating: I forbid them to investigate. There is just certin things I don't want brought up for any circumstance, therefore, if they can't investigate, they can't present. He added: I don't want my background drug through the dirt any more than it has been. And: It's my life. It's private and I'm keeping it that way. It's been that way all my life and I'm going to keep it private. He told the court: I also, when it come right down to it, if I'm convicted and I would rather do the death penalty and just get it over with then.... Let's just get it over with. I know when I wake up in the next life I'm not going to be in jail. Counsel told the court: If we do proceed with the investigation, Mr. Twilegar will fire us, and I think that would be of greater harm to him than for us to [respect his wishes concerning mitigation]. When questioned by the trial court and the State numerous times if he understood that prohibiting investigation could limit the mitigation presented if he later chose to present a case, Twilegar replied that he understood. Twilegar further stated that he accepted that his actions barred him from raising the issue on appeal. Trial counsel stated that Twilegar was intelligent and self-educated, that counsel had met with him frequently and that there was no question in his mind that he was competent. Twilegar stated that he had no history of mental illness, that his mental faculties were not impaired and that he had never been under the care of a mental health professional. The trial court found that he was competent and accepted his waivers. The court revisited the issue throughout the trial and gave Twilegar repeated opportunities to reconsider. At the Spencer hearing, pursuant to the court's direction, the State presented in mitigation a Missouri presentence investigation report and a Missouri psychiatric report concerning Twilegar, and Twilegar himself presented Thomas's last will and testament and a booking report and probable cause affidavit concerning Thomas's arrest for conspiracy to murder his wife. The mitigation offered by the State indicated that Twilegar had no mental illness and that his most recent IQ score was 102. At the hearing on Twilegar's motion for a new trial, defense counsel submitted, and the court accepted, the written arguments that counsel had prepared for the penalty phase and also the written arguments that counsel had prepared for the Spencer hearing. The court also considered the presentence investigation report that had been prepared for this case. Prior to the court's pronouncing sentence, Twilegar read a prepared statement wherein he proclaimed his innocence and again sought to cast suspicion on Thomas's wife. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Twilegar's waiver of a penalty phase jury, waiver of investigation into mitigation and waiver of the presentation of mitigation were knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and that the trial court did not err in granting these waivers. Accordingly, Twilegar has failed to show that the trial court erred with respect to this claim.