Opinion ID: 1852379
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Present Mitigating Evidence/Failure to Obtain a Mental Health Professional Who Would Conduct a Competent Evaluation

Text: Waterhouse next maintains that his defense attorney was ineffective in failing to bring forth mitigating evidence and in failing to retain a mental health expert who would have conducted a competent evaluation. It is necessary to understand, however, that it was Waterhouse himself who elected not to present mitigating evidence and who refused to meet with the mental health expert. We noted the same in our opinion on direct appeal from the resentencing: Although we later vacated Waterhouse's death sentence in order to allow him to present nonstatutory mitigating evidence, Waterhouse refused to allow the presentation of mitigation evidence at resentencing. Thus, this case stands in the same posture as it stood on direct appeal when the death sentence was upheld. Waterhouse, 596 So.2d at 1018 n. 6. In Koon v. Dugger, 619 So.2d 246, 250 (Fla.1993), quoted with approval in Chandler v. State, 702 So.2d 186, 199 (Fla.1997), we outlined the procedure which must be followed when a defendant waives the presentation of mitigating evidence. The procedure was detailed as follows: 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 underlying purpose for this framework is to protect against the problems inherent in a trial record that does not adequately reflect a defendant's waiver of his right to present any mitigating evidence. Id. Although Koon is technically inapplicable to this case because the penalty phase proceedings below occurred some three years prior to the Koon decision becoming final, see Allen v. State, 662 So.2d 323, 329 (Fla. 1995) (noting that ruling in Koon was prospective); Elam v. State, 636 So.2d 1312, 1314 (Fla.1994)(same), it should be noted that a review of the record in this case demonstrates that the end sought by the Koon decision (i.e., a clear record as to defendant's waiver of the presentation of mitigating factors) was actually accomplished in this case. That is, Waterhouse made it abundantly clear that he was waiving his right to present mitigating evidence. Specifically, Waterhouse unequivocally asserted: Mr. Hoffman could have presented at least a half a dozen factors in mitigation, but I wouldn't let him do that because I don't feel that he should be up here begging you. I shouldn't be up here begging you for my life. It goes against my moral principals [sic] and, furthermore, spares my family the embarrassment, the trauma. Moreover, this was not simply a case where a defense attorney latched on to a defendant's refusal to present mitigating evidence. The evidence in support of mitigation had already been investigated and accumulated as part of Waterhouse's previous collateral and habeas proceedings. In fact, the record in this case includes the affidavit of Dr. Fred S. Berlin, who concluded that Waterhouse may have been under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the commission of the crime and that this may have impaired his capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. [12] Defense counsel had also obtained the necessary paperwork to bring Waterhouse's brother from Louisiana, but Waterhouse indicated that if that were done, he would contact his brother and tell him to avoid the proceedings. Additionally, after the trial court appointed Dr. Charles H. Wheaton to examine Waterhouse for the possibility that he might suffer from organic brain damage, Waterhouse refused to meet with the doctor. Accordingly, because the only reason why mitigating evidence was not presented was entirely due to Waterhouse's own conduct, we cannot deem defense counsel deficient for failing to present such evidence. Thus, we conclude that the trial court correctly denied an evidentiary hearing as to this claim.