Opinion ID: 2544894
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Competency Evaluation After Dessaure Waived Mitigation

Text: Dessaure first claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for allowing Dessaure to waive his right to a jury in the penalty phase without ordering a competency hearing. Dessaure particularly relies on language contained in the forms he signed in waiving a penalty phase jury, namely that Dessaure joined the State in seeking the death penalty. Dessaure claims that this language is extraordinary and proves that he should have been given a second competency hearing. We disagree. Florida law provides that a defendant must be given a competency examination only if the court or defense counsel has reasonable ground to believe that the defendant is not mentally competent to proceed. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.210(b). Once a defendant has been deemed competent, the presumption of competence continues throughout all subsequent proceedings. Boyd v. State, 910 So.2d 167, 187 (Fla. 2005) (citing Durocher v. Singletary, 623 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla.1993)). A subsequent competency hearing is only required if a bona fide question as to the defendant's competency has been raised. Id. (citing Hunter v. State, 660 So.2d 244, 248 (Fla. 1995)). If there is no reason to suspect that a defendant is incompetent, then it cannot be deficient performance if counsel does not request a competency examination. Nixon v. State, 932 So.2d 1009, 1020 (Fla.2006) ([T]rial counsel had no reason to request a competency determination [because defendant] had been examined by a mental health expert who did not give trial counsel any reason to delve further into competency.). Here, defense counsel was not ineffective for not requesting an additional competency hearing for Dessaure. Prior to the beginning of trial, Dr. Maher evaluated Dessaure for competency and concluded that Dessaure was competent to stand trial and to make penalty phase decisions, even in light of his posttraumatic stress disorder and history of suicide attempts. In addition, three of Dessaure's defense attorneys, Messrs. Cobb, Schwartzberg, and Watts, testified at an evidentiary hearing regarding their confidence in Dessaure's competency. Mr. Cobb testified that he could not recall anything about the results of that examination that suggested Dessaure was not competent to stand trial and assist counsel. Mr. Schwartzberg stated that he stood by Dessaure's decision to waive his right to a penalty phase jury because Dessaure gave a considerable amount of thought to the waiver and that all three talked to Dessaure about it. Mr. Watts testified that he consulted Dr. Maher about the penalty phase, and both believed Dessaure was competent to make waiver-type decisions. Mr. Watts further testified that he spent roughly thirty hours with Dessaure discussing the case, Dessaure's background, and the penalty phase, and that Dessaure consistently maintained that he did not want a penalty phase. The record also shows that the trial judge engaged in multiple colloquies with Dessaure to confirm that his waivers were knowing and voluntary, that Dessaure understood his right to present mitigation evidence, and that his decision not to present mitigation was against his attorneys' advice. In sum, nothing in the trial proceedings raised a bona fide question about Dessaure's competency. We also disagree that the language contained in the signed waiver was extraordinary or by itself draws Dessaure's competency into question. The record makes clear that Dessaure's lawyers explained to him on multiple occasions that he should reconsider his decision to waive mitigation. His attorney was prepared to present mitigation and also proffered the mitigating circumstances in court. Dessaure had many opportunities to change his mind regarding mitigation. Therefore, the waiver was nothing extraordinary, but rather a signed acknowledgement of the possible result of his actions. Accordingly, defense counsel cannot be rendered ineffective for not requesting additional competency testing when Dessaure waived his right to present mitigation.