Case Name: Albert COOPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1999-07-08
Citations: 739 So. 2d 82
Docket Number: No. 86,133
Parties: Albert COOPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: SHAW, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., and KOGAN, Senior Justice, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 739
Pages: 82–90

Head Matter:
Albert COOPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 86,133.
Supreme Court of Florida.
July 8, 1999.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 13, 1999.
Scott W. Sakin, Special Assistant Public Defender, Miami, Florida, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Randall Sutton, Assistant Attorney General, Miami, Florida, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have on appeal the judgment and sentence of the trial court imposing the death penalty on Albert Cooper. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. We affirm the conviction but vacate the death sentence and remand for imposition of a life sentence without possibility of parole for twenty-five years.
On May 25, 1991, Albert Cooper and Tivan Johnson robbed a pawnshop owned by Charles Barker and shot Barker to death. Both men were later arrested and confessed to the crime. Cooper was charged with first-degree murder, armed robbery with a firearm, and armed burglary with a firearm, and was convicted as charged following a joint trial.
During the penalty phase of the trial, the defense presented testimony of two mental health experts, Drs. Eisenstein and Schwartz, and several relatives. Dr. Eisenstein testified that Cooper is brain-damaged, has a history of seizures, and suffers from frontal lobe dysfunction, which causes him to have impaired judgment and poor impulse control. Dr. Ei senstein further stated that at the time of the crime Cooper was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance and was under extreme duress or under substantial dominion of another person. The other defense mental health expert, Dr. Schwartz, testified that Cooper scored high on tests for both paranoia and schizophrenia and is borderline retarded.
Relatives attested to the brutality Cooper suffered as a young child at the hands of his father (his mother divorced the man when Cooper was six or seven years old). One of Cooper's sisters testified that their father was an alcoholic who frequently beat the children and who on one occasion rammed Cooper's head into the refrigerator. Cooper's aunt testified that the father frequently whipped and beat Cooper and threatened the children with a gun. And a second sister testified that the father would frequently pull out his gun and threaten the children and that on one occasion he actually put the gun to young Cooper's head.
The jury recommended death by an eight-to-four vote, and the court imposed a sentence of death based on three aggravating circumstances, two statutory mitigating circumstances, and several nonstatuto-ry mitigating circumstances. The court additionally imposed consecutive life sentences on the armed robbery and armed burglary convictions, with consecutive mandatory minimum terms for the firearm violations.
Cooper raises ten claims on appeal but we find a single issue disposi-tive. Our review of the record shows that Cooper's death sentence is disproportionate when compared to other capital cases. This Court in Almeida v. State, No. 89,432, — So.2d -, 1999 WL 506965 (Fla. July 8, 1999), explained the parameters of our proportionality review:
Almeida next claims that his death sentence is disproportionate. We agree. The Court in State v. Dixon, 283 So.2d 1 (Fla.1973), held that the death penalty is reserved for only the most indefensible of crimes:
Review of a sentence of death by this Court . is the final step within the State judicial system. Again, the sole purpose of the step is to provide the convicted defendant with one final hearing before death is imposed. Thus, it again presents evidence of legislative intent to extract the penalty of death for only the most aggravated, the most indefensible of crimes.
Id. at 8. We later explained: "Our law reserves the death penalty only for the most aggravated and least mitigated murders." Kramer v. State, 619 So.2d 274, 278 (Fla.1993). Thus, our inquiry when conducting proportionality review is two-pronged: We compare the case under review to others to determine if the crime falls within the category of both (1) the most aggravated, and (2) the least mitigated of murders.
Almeida, slip op. at 21-22, — So.2d at -.
In the present case, as noted above, the trial court found that three aggravators had been established, i.e., commission of a prior capital or violent felony (based on a robbery-murder Cooper committed several days after the present crime), commission during a robbery and for pecuniary gain, and CCP. This Court in other capital cases has affirmed the death penalty where comparable or less aggravation was present. Thus, the first prong of the above standard appears to be satisfied.
The trial court additionally found that two statutory and several nonstatutory mitigators were established, including Cooper's low intelligence (i.e., Dr. Schwartz testified that Cooper's test results placed him in the borderline retarded category) and his abusive childhood. This Court has reversed the death penalty in cases where multiple aggravators were posed against comparable mitigation. In addition to the evidence of brutal childhood, brain damage, mental retardation, and mental illness (i.e., paranoid schizophrenia) in the present case, the defendant was eighteen years old at the time of the crime and had no criminal record prior to the present offense. We note that the jury vote was eight-to-four. On this record, we cannot conclude that the present.crime is one of the least mitigated murders this Court has reviewed. In fact, the record shows just the opposite — i.e., that this is one of the most mitigated killings we have reviewed. Accordingly, Cooper's death sentence is disproportionate.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm Cooper's convictions and sentences with the following exceptions. We vacate his death sentence and remand for imposition of a life sentence without possibility of parole for twenty-five years on the first-degree murder count. We reverse the imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum terms on the firearm counts and remand for imposition of concurrent mandatory minimum terms on those counts.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., and KOGAN, Senior Justice, concur.
WELLS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which HARDING, C.J., and OVERTON, Senior Justice, concur.
. Dr. Eisenstein also attested to the following: Cooper is brain-damaged from beatings and head trauma suffered as a small child (his father would beat him and throw him against the wall and against the refrigerator); and Cooper has cognitive brain impairment.
. Dr. Schwartz also attested to the following: Cooper scored high on tests for substance abuse, thought disturbance, antisocial tendency, and poor self-esteem; Cooper suffers from neurological deficiency; and Cooper suffered abuse as a young child — his father on one occasion rammed him head-first into the refrigerator;
. In rebuttal to the defendant's penalty-phase case, the State presented the testimony of two mental health experts, Drs. Levy and Aguila-Puentes, and several acquaintances of Cooper.
. The court found that the following aggravating circumstances were established: The defendant had committed a prior capital or violent felony; the present murder was committed during a robbery and for pecuniary gain; and the murder was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner (CCP).
. The court found that the following statutory mitigating circumstances were established: The defendant had no significant history of prior criminal activity; and the defendant was eighteen years old at the time of the crime.
. The court found that the following nonstatu-tory mitigating circumstances were established: The defendant had low intelligence; and the defendant had an abusive childhood.
. The defendant claims that the trial court erred on the following points: (1) in admitting Cooper's confession; (2) in allowing the Slate to introduce evidence concerning a collateral criminal matter; (3) in denying Cooper's motion for severance; (4) in denying Cooper's motion for mistrial after jurors witnessed Cooper in shackles; (5) in instructing the jury during voir dire that they must recommend death if they find that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances; (6) in finding CCP; (7) in failing to give a requested instruction concerning Cooper's age; (8) in admitting penalty phase evidence concerning a collateral crime; (9) in failing to adequately consider evidence of Cooper's drug use; (10) in imposing consecutive mandatory minimum terms on the armed robbery and burglary counts.
. Cooper's four guilt-phase issues, claims (1)-(4), are without merit. In claim (1), Cooper argues that the third warning on the Metro-Dade rights form (i.e., "If you want a lawyer to be present during questioning, at this time or any time thereafter, you are entitled to have a lawyer present. Do you understand?") is insufficient. This warning, however, tracks the language of Miranda. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) ("[The suspect] must be warned prior to any questioning . that he has the right to the presence of an attorney.''). In claim (2), Cooper contends that the jury was improperly told of his involvement in another criminal matter. The record, however, shows that jurors were never told that Cooper was under arrest or a suspect in another crime, but only that he and Johnson and six or seven other witnesses were being interviewed on another matter when police began questioning Cooper about the present crime. The testimony was relevant to explain the time lag between the time Cooper arrived at the station house and the time he confessed to the present crime. In claim (3), Cooper argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for severance based on the rebuttal testimony of Renee Carey. However, Carey's testimony (wherein she said that Cooper admitted to her his involvement in the present crime), was offered by the State in rebuttal to codefendant Johnson's testimony and would have been admissible as substantive evidence against Cooper if the codefendants had been tried separately. See § 90.803, Fla. Stat. (1991). In claim (4), Cooper contends that reversal is required because jurors observed him in shackles. Cooper, however, was not tried in shackles, and the fact that jurors may have inadvertently seen him in shackles when he was being transported to or from the courtroom does not require reversal. See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 545 So.2d 260 (Fla.1989).
. See, e.g., Heath v. State, 648 So.2d 660 (Fla.1994) (affirming death sentence for shooting death of victim where aggravators included commission during a robbery, and prior murder); Cook v. State, 581 So.2d 141 (Fla.1991) (affirming death sentence for shooting death of victim where aggravators included commission during a robbery, and prior murder); King v. State, 436 So.2d 50 (Fla.1983) (affirming death sentence for shooting death of victim where aggravators included HAC and pri- or ax-slaying of another victim); Harvard v. State, 414 So.2d 1032 (Fla.1982) (affirming death sentence for shooting death of victim where aggravators included HAC and prior shooting of another victim).
. See, e.g., Urbin v. State, 714 So.2d 411 (Fla.1998) (vacating death sentence for robbery-murder where multiple aggravators — in- eluding prior violent felony — were weighed against substantial mitigation including impaired capacity, deprived childhood, and youth); Curtis v. State, 685 So.2d 1234 (Fla.1996) (vacating death sentence for shooting death of store clerk where multiple aggrava-tors — including attempted murder of second store clerk — were weighed against substantial mitigation including remorse and youth), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1124, 117 S.Ct. 2521, 138 L.Ed.2d 1022 (1997); Morgan v. State, 639 So.2d 6 (Fla.1994) (vacating death sentence for bludgeoning death of homeowner where multiple aggravators were weighed against copious mitigation including brain damage and youth); Livingston v. State, 565 So.2d 1288 (Fla.1988) (vacating death sentence for shooting death of store clerk where multiple aggravators were weighed against substantial mitigation including abusive childhood, diminished intellectual functioning, and youth). See also Knowles v. State, 632 So.2d 62 (Fla.1993) (vacating death sentence for shooting deaths of defendant's father and neighborhood child where one aggravator was weighed against substantial mitigation including brain damage and impaired capacity).
. This Court addressed the stacking of mandatory minimum terms in State v. Christian, 692 So.2d 889 (Fla.1997);
As a general rule, for offenses arising from a single episode, stacking is permissible where the violations of the mandatory minimum statutes cause injury to multiple victims, or multiple injuries to one victim. The injuries bifurcate the crimes for stacking purposes.
Id. at 890-91 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added). We further explained that "[e]ach violation [of the mandatory minimum statute] must cause a separate injury." Id. at 890 n. 2. In the present case, the firearm violation under the armed robbery count did not cause an injury to the victim that was separate and distinct from the injury caused by the firearm violation under the armed burglary count.