William TOSTE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Raymond M. LOPES, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 285, Docket 88-2124.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Nov. 2, 1988.
Decided Nov. 17, 1988.
Robert E. Precht, New York City (The Legal Aid Soc., Federal Defender Services Unit), for petitioner-appellant.
Julia DiCocco Dewey, Asst. State’s Atty., Wallingford, Conn. (Appellate Unit, Office of the Chief State’s Atty., Div. of Criminal Justice), for respondent-appellee.
Before KAUFMAN, OAKES and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
William Tosté appeals from Judge Ca-branes’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Tosté was convicted of murder by a jury in the Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield, Connecticut on May 8, 1981. He was sentenced to a term of no less than twenty-five years nor more than life. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. State v. Toste, 198 Conn. 573, 504 A.2d 1036 (1982). Tosté filed a petition under 28 U.S. C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus. He appeals from Judge Cabranes’s order of December 31, 1987 denying that petition.
We affirm the order for the reasons stated in Judge Cabranes’s thorough opinion. Toste v. Lopes, 701 F.Supp. 306 (D.Conn.1987). The validity of a waiver is a matter for independent federal determination. Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 403-04, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 1241-42, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977); see also Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 106 S.Ct. 445, 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985) (voluntariness of a confession a matter for independent federal review).
Despite his low intelligence level, Tosté validly waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). He was advised of his Miranda rights immediately after his arrest. State v. Toste, 198 Conn. at 577, 504 A.2d 1036. After the warning, he orally indicated that he understood and signed a written form acknowledging that he comprehended his rights. Id. at 578, 504 A.2d 1036. At a second questioning session, Tosté was again warned of his rights in the same explicit fashion. He again indicated that he understood and signed a statement acknowledging this. Id. at 578-79, 504 A.2d 1036.
While the psychological testimony could support a conclusion that Tosté has a personality disorder, it does not indicate that he is unable to comprehend sufficiently the rights set forth in Miranda. A waiver of the right to remain silent is not invalid merely because a defendant is of limited mental capacity. See United States v. Glover, 596 F.2d 857 (9th Cir.1979); see also Toliver v. Gathright, 501 F.Supp. 148, 150 (E.D.VA.1980) (waiver of right to remain silent not invalid solely because defendant has less than average intelligence). Nothing in the record seriously questions Captain Fabrizi’s testimony at trial that Tosté was “streetwise,” communicated relatively well and operated at about a sixth to seventh grade level. We agree with the district court that the preponderance of the facts in the instant case, as found by the Connecticut courts, demonstrate that Tosté knowingly and intelligently waived his right to remain silent.