Opinion ID: 1243322
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Ability to Waive Appeal

Text: We limit a death row inmate's ability to waive appeals to those who are competent and whose decision to do so is both knowing and voluntary. See Torrence II, supra. Passaro is competent to waive his right to appeal. His decision to do so is knowing and voluntary.
The standard to determine competency, set forth by Singleton v. State, supra , is: 1) whether the defendant can understand the nature of the proceedings, the crimes for which he was tried, and the reason for the punishment; and 2) whether the convicted defendant possesses sufficient capacity or ability to rationally communicate with counsel. See Torrence II, supra. The State argues the only evidence, particularly Dr. Crawford's report, presented at the competency hearing demonstrates Passaro is competent under Singleton. We agree. The evidence presented at the hearing establishes Passaro suffers from no major mental illness. The evidence also shows he understands the nature of appellate proceedings, including the relevant issues of appeal, the role of his attorneys and the function of the court system in the process. Passaro was able to state why he was tried and why he received a death sentence. Dr. Crawford noted Passaro was aware of the finality of the death penalty and was able to discuss in detail his reason for waiving his appeal. The defense expert's report provided a similar evaluation. We questioned Passaro at length during oral arguments. Our own questioning of him leaves no doubt of his competency. At oral arguments we questioned Passaro extensively about his trial, the appeals process and the consequence of his request to terminate any appeals on his behalf. It is our observation that Passaro possesses the capacity and ability to communicate with counsel. There is no evidence suggesting Passaro is not competent under the Singleton standard. We conclude, based on the hearing below and our questioning, that Passaro is competent to waive his appeal.
The evidence presented at the competency hearing and Passaro's testimony before this Court establishes the wavier of his right to appellate review is knowing and voluntary. [10] Dr. Crawford noted Passaro understood the consequences of his action. No evidence suggests Passaro is being coerced into waiving his appeal. While defense counsel notes Passaro, at Dr. Crawford's second visit on March 20, 2001, expressed the possibility he may change his mind, he made no such comments at the competency hearing. In his letter to defense counsel waiving his right to file a pro se brief, Passaro unequivocally agreed with the State's brief. Such a statement reaffirms his prior commitment to waive his right to appeal. At oral argument, we questioned Passaro extensively about the voluntary nature of his request. We also questioned whether he fully understood the appellate process and what he could hope to gain by appealing his sentence. We conclude Passaro's request is knowingly and voluntarily made.