Opinion ID: 1101139
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Waiver of Right to Present Mitigating Testimony

Text: As his first penalty phase issue, Chandler contends that the trial court erred in accepting his waiver of the right to present penalty phase mitigating testimony because defense counsel failed to inform the trial court what that evidence would be, contrary to the procedure we established in Koon v. Dugger, 619 So.2d 246 (Fla.1993). For that reason, Chandler asks us to vacate his death sentences. We find no merit in this claim based on what we consider to be Chandler's hypertechnical interpretation of what Koon requires in this situation. We established the Koon procedure due to our concern 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. 619 So.2d at 250. To achieve the goal of avoiding such problems, we instituted the following procedure for use when defendants wish to waive presentation of mitigating evidence during the penalty phase: 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. Id. 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. The record reflects that after defense counsel informed the court of Chandler's decision and began to go over the list of penalty phase witnesses and what they would say, the trial judge stated: However, I think there is a caseand I don't have it at my fingertipsbut what it says is, if the Defendant has told the defense counsel not to call relevant mitigation, that defense counsel is, Number One, obligated to tell the Court that; and, Number Two, the Court then is obligated to tell you what you would havewho you would have called and what they would have said, basically. And then Mr. Chandler has got to, in essence, acknowledge that he understands it could have been helpful and, in essence, announce that he wish that not be presented. Clearly, the trial judge was describing Koon and the compulsory procedure in this situation. Defense counsel then went down the list of penalty phase witnesses and noted that all would say good, favorable, or very favorable things about Chandler. He also responded that he had discussed those favorable things with Chandler. At that point, the trial judge commented as follows: Court: Okay. Mr. Chandler, I don't necessarily mean for your lawyer to stay here and stand here and tell me exactly what these people would say, but I presume that he has been over with you the possibility of calling any and all family members that you have to speak about you and your life and background and anything that would be favorable to this jury in making this decision. Has he gone over that with you? Chandler: Yes, he has, and I have made a decision, your Honor, to call no one. Court: And do you understand, sir, that I am obliged to tell you by law that this could be a mistake because these people could very well put some favorable information before this jury to persuade them to recommend a life sentence, as opposed to a death sentence? Do you understand that? Chandler: Yes, I do. Court: And you've had plenty of time to talk this over with your lawyer? Chandler: Yes. Court: And it is your decision that you have instructed your lawyer not to call these people. Is that correct? Chandler: That's correct. Court: Is there anything else we need to put on the record? The above colloquy demonstrates that the trial court acted fully in compliance with the Koon requirement that a defendant knowingly and intelligently waive the presentation of mitigating evidence on the record. Moreover, we find that defense counsel complied with his duties under Koon by investigating Chandler's background, having witnesses ready and available to testify, and adequately outlining the favorable character evidence that Chandler's witnesses would have presented. [19] Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court's acceptance of Chandler's waiver.