## Facts

- Ronald Lee Deere, upset over the end of a relationship, went to Don Davis’s residence and shot and killed Don Davis and Davis’s two young children.
- Before the killings, Deere threatened to kill members of the former partner’s family and warned he would not be responsible for what he did that day.
- Deere was arrested days later and charged with one count of first degree murder, two counts of second degree murder, and a multiple-murder special circumstance (Cal. Penal Code § 190.2(a)(3)).
- After a court-appointed psychiatric evaluation found him competent, Deere pleaded guilty to all counts and admitted the special circumstance; counsel concurred.
- At the first penalty proceeding, Deere waived a jury and directed counsel to present no mitigation; the court imposed death.
- On direct review, the prior penalty judgment was reversed because counsel’s failure to present mitigation, even at the client’s insistence, denied effective assistance at the penalty phase.
- On remand, Deere again waived a jury and insisted on no mitigation; original counsel again refused to present mitigating evidence and was held in contempt after declining to comply with the trial court’s order.
- The trial court appointed an independent attorney to present mitigation; that attorney presented witnesses and argued for a life sentence based on, among other things, Deere’s artistic ability and psychological stress at the time of the crimes.
- The trial court again imposed a death sentence, triggering automatic appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether Deere was denied effective assistance at the penalty retrial when original counsel refused to present mitigating evidence consistent with Deere’s wishes.
2. Whether appointing independent counsel to present mitigating evidence sufficiently ensured a reliable, individualized capital sentencing determination.
3. To what extent a capital defendant may bar presentation of mitigating evidence at sentencing.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the death judgment.
- The court held the penalty retrial was constitutionally reliable because mitigating evidence was actually presented through independent counsel.
- Any deficiency from original counsel’s refusal to present mitigation did not require reversal given the trial court’s corrective measures and the mitigation record made at retrial.
- The court rejected Deere’s remaining penalty-phase challenges.

## Legal Principles

- In a capital penalty proceeding, counsel has a duty to ensure the sentencer receives a meaningful mitigation presentation; a defendant’s desire to present none does not justify a non-existent penalty defense.
- The state’s interest in a reliable, individualized capital sentencing determination limits a defendant’s ability to prevent the presentation of mitigating evidence.
- A trial court may require that mitigation be presented (or that counsel represent none exists) and may appoint independent counsel to present mitigation when defense counsel declines to do so based on the defendant’s directives.

## Conclusion

The death sentence was affirmed because the penalty retrial included a substantive mitigation case presented by independent counsel, providing an adequate basis for an individualized sentencing determination despite the defendant’s insistence that no mitigation be offered.


People v. Deere, 808 P.2d 1181 (Cal. 1991)