Whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments are violated when a capital sentencing panel issues a death sentence despite the defendant's refusal to introduce mitigating evidence, evidence regarding proportionality, or raise legal issues while exercising his right to represent himself pro se

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Patrick Schroeder was serving a life sentence for first degree murder, when he was charged with killing his | cell mate. The charging document included a notice of aggravation seeking the death penalty in light of his | previous murder conviction or violent criminal history. | Schroeder ultimately waived counsel, withdrew the legal challenges to the execution procedure filed by his then counsel, and pled guilty as charged without a plea agreement. He then waived the right to a jury determination of the single aggravating factor alleged, and allowed the State to present its aggravation evidence without objection. He also refused to present any evidence in mitigation, refused to inform the proportionality review , and refused to cooperating with the Presentence | Investigation (PSI). Schroeder also did not object when the State introduced evidence relating to uncharged aggravators under the guise of refuting statutory mitigators. The sentencing panel was left to conduct its statutory obligations with skewed information. The questions presented are: 1) Whether the Eighth and _ Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution are violated when a capital sentencing panel issues a death sentence after a paltry presentence investigation despite the defendant’s refusal to introduce mitigating evidence, i | evidence regarding proportionality, or raise legal issues while exercising his right to represent himself pro se. : 2) Whether the Eighth and_ Fourteenth Amendments are violated when a State Supreme Court adopts a rule allowing the prosecution in a capital case to introduce evidence proving uncharged and non-statutory aggravating : circumstances under the guise of refuting statutory mitigating circumstances when the pro se Defendant introduced no mitigating evidence, the pro se Defendant twice told the sentencing panel that he did not intend to present any mitigating evidence, and there was only a remote possibility that the sentencing panel would find any of the statutory mitigators present from the information contained in the meager presentence investigation report. | ii}