Opinion ID: 2487462
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Waiver of Mitigation and Counsel's Failure to Proffer Evidence

Text: We review this claim in the context of Wyatt's waiver of mitigation at trial. As this Court found on direct appeal, Wyatt instructed his counsel throughout the trial that he did not want any witnesses called in mitigation, and the record [was] clear that Wyatt effectively waived presentation of mitigating evidence. Wyatt, 641 So.2d at 1340. Wyatt contends as a threshold matter that trial counsel were ineffective because they failed to proffer all available mitigation prior to Wyatt's waiver in violation of this Court's holding in Koon v. Dugger, 619 So.2d 246 (Fla.1993). In Koon, this Court outlined the proper procedure by which trial courts must abide when a defendant waives the presentation of mitigating evidence: [C]ounsel 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. 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.' Waterhouse v. State, 792 So.2d 1176, 1184 (Fla.2001) (quoting Koon, 619 So.2d at 250). However, this Court's decision in Koon was issued more than two years after Wyatt's January 1991 penalty phase, and the Koon decision applied only prospectively. See Allen v. State, 662 So.2d 323, 329 (Fla.1995). Thus, [t]rial counsel cannot be deemed deficient for failing to foresee Koon. Anderson v. State, 822 So.2d 1261, 1268 (Fla.2002). Regardless of Koon's applicability, the record reflects that during several exchanges in which Wyatt informed the trial court of his decision to waive mitigation, defense counsel noted on the record that Wyatt's mother and sister could be used to establish mitigation relating to Wyatt's upbringing and abusive childhood. Defense attorney Ernon Sidaway also explained that he was aware of, and would have available, family members and non-family members who could testify as to possible mitigation. Later, at Wyatt's sentencing hearing, defense counsel acknowledged that he caused subpoenas to be issued for several witnesses for the sake of penalty-phase testimony, but those witnesses did not appear in light of Wyatt's specific instructions. The record also shows that the trial court did engage in several on-the-record colloquies with Wyatt to ensure that his decision to waive mitigation was knowing and voluntary. In addition, prior to the penalty phase, Wyatt signed an express waiver of five statutory mitigating circumstances. Thus, the purpose sought by the Koon decision was essentially accomplished in this case, and Wyatt is not entitled to relief.