Title: Grim v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC17-1071
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: March 29, 2018

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC17-1071 
____________ 
 
NORMAN MEARLE GRIM, 
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Appellee. 
 
[March 29, 2018] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
Norman Mearle Grim, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the circuit 
court’s order summarily denying his first successive motion for postconviction 
relief, which was filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851.  We have 
jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. 
In 2000, a jury convicted Grim of first-degree murder and sexual battery 
upon a person twelve years of age or older with use of a deadly weapon.  After 
hearing evidence at the penalty phase, the jury unanimously recommended the 
death sentence by a vote of twelve to zero.  We affirmed Grim’s convictions and 
sentence of death on direct appeal.  Grim v. State, 841 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 2003).  We 
 
 
- 2 - 
also upheld the denial of his initial motion for postconviction relief and denied his 
petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  Grim v. State, 971 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2007). 
In June 2016, Grim filed his current first successive postconviction motion 
in which he sought relief based on Hurst v. Florida (Hurst v. Florida), 136 S. Ct. 
616 (2016).  Grim subsequently filed a memorandum of law in which he further 
argued that he was entitled to relief based on this Court’s decision in Hurst v. State 
(Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017).  In May 
2017, the circuit court entered an order summarily denying Grim’s successive 
postconviction motion.  This appeal followed.  While Grim’s postconviction case 
was pending in this Court, we directed the parties to file briefs addressing why the 
circuit court’s order should not be affirmed based on this Court’s precedent in 
Hurst, Davis v. State, 207 So. 3d 142 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2218 
(2017), and Mosley v. State, 209 So. 3d 1248 (Fla. 2016). 
In Davis, this Court held that a jury’s unanimous recommendation of death 
is “precisely what we determined in Hurst to be constitutionally necessary to 
impose a sentence of death” because a “jury unanimously f[inds] all of the 
necessary facts for the imposition of [a] death sentence[] by virtue of its unanimous 
recommendation[].”  Davis, 207 So. 3d at 175.  This Court has consistently relied 
on Davis to deny Hurst relief to defendants that have received a unanimous jury 
recommendation of death.  See, e.g., Bevel v. State, 221 So. 3d 1168, 1178 (Fla. 
 
 
- 3 - 
2017); Guardado v. Jones, 226 So. 3d 213, 215 (Fla. 2017), petition for cert. filed, 
No. 17-7171 (U.S. Dec. 18, 2017); Cozzie v. State, 225 So. 3d 717, 733 (Fla. 
2017), petition for cert. filed, No. 17-7545 (U.S. Jan. 24, 2018); Morris v. State, 
219 So. 3d 33, 46 (Fla.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 452 (2017); Tundidor v. State, 221 
So. 3d 587, 607-08 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 829 (2018); Oliver v. State, 
214 So. 3d 606, 617-18 (Fla.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 3 (2017); Middleton v. State, 
220 So. 3d 1152, 1184-85 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 829 (2018); Truehill 
v. State, 211 So. 3d 930, 956-57 (Fla.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 3 (2017).  Grim is 
among those defendants who received a unanimous jury recommendation of death, 
and his arguments do not compel departing from our precedent.1 
Accordingly, because we find that any Hurst error in this case was harmless 
beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm the circuit court’s order summarily denying 
Grim’s first successive motion for postconviction relief. 
It is so ordered. 
LABARGA, C.J., and LEWIS and LAWSON, JJ., concur. 
CANADY and POLSTON, JJ., concur in result. 
PARIENTE, J., dissents with an opinion, in which QUINCE, J., concurs. 
                                          
 
1.  The fact that Grim declined to present mitigation to the jury during the 
penalty phase has no bearing here.  Grim’s waiver of that right was valid, and he 
“cannot subvert the right to jury factfinding by waiving that right and then 
suggesting that a subsequent development in the law has fundamentally 
undermined his sentence.”  Jones v. State, 212 So. 3d 321, 343 n.3 (Fla.) (quoting 
Mullens v. State, 197 So. 3d 16, 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 672 
(2017)), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 175 (2017). 
 
 
- 4 - 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
PARIENTE, J., dissenting. 
 
The majority relies on the jury’s unanimous recommendation for death to 
determine that the Hurst2 error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.  However, 
for the same reasons set forth in my concurring in part, dissenting in part opinion 
in Kaczmar v. State, 228 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2017), petition for cert. filed, No. 17-8148 
(U.S. Mar. 14, 2018), I would reverse for a new penalty phase because the jury was 
not presented with any evidence of the significant mitigation in Grim’s case, which 
the trial judge subsequently heard, before making its recommendation.  Due to the 
jury’s critical role in capital sentencing after Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 
(2016), and Hurst, unless the defendant waives his right to a penalty phase jury, 
available mitigation must be presented to the jury.   
FACTS 
After being convicted of first-degree murder and sexual battery upon a 
person twelve years of age or older with the use of a deadly weapon, Grim 
“insisted on not presenting any mitigation” to the jury during the penalty phase.  
Grim v. State (Grim I), 841 So. 2d 455, 459 (Fla. 2003).  Grim explained to the 
                                          
 
 
2.  Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 
2161 (2017). 
 
 
 
- 5 - 
trial judge at the Koon3 hearing that he would rather receive the death penalty than 
spend the rest of his life in prison.  After a penalty phase, in which the jury did not 
hear any evidence of mitigation, the jury unanimously recommended that Grim be 
sentenced to death.  Id. 
Despite the absence of mitigating evidence, pursuant to this Court’s opinion 
in Muhammad v. State, 782 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2001), the trial court was obligated to 
determine the existence of mitigation anywhere in the record and had the discretion 
to appoint special counsel to present mitigation.  Id. at 364-65.  Accordingly, the 
trial court appointed special counsel to present available mitigating evidence at the 
Spencer4 hearing.   
After the Spencer hearing, the trial court found three aggravating factors, 
three statutory mitigating circumstances, and five nonstatutory mitigating 
circumstances.  Grim I, 841 So. 2d at 460.  The three statutory mitigating 
circumstances were: (1) disruptive home life and child abuse; (2) hard-working 
employee; and (3) mental health problems that did not reach the level of section 
921.141(6)(b), Florida Statutes (1997).  Id.  The nonstatutory mitigating 
circumstances were: “(1) lack of long-term psychiatric care”; (2) “marital problems 
                                          
 
 
3.  Koon v. Dugger, 619 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1993). 
 
 
4.  Spencer v. State, 615 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1993). 
 
 
- 6 - 
and situational stresses”; (3) “errors of judgment under stress”; (4) “model prison 
inmate”; and (5) “entered prison at a young age.”  Id.   
  As to statutory mental mitigation, the trial court’s sentencing order 
explained that the evidence presented by special counsel—which included the 
deposition testimony of psychologist Dr. James Larson and a 1983 psychiatric 
evaluation by Dr. B. R. Ogburn—established the following: (1) Grim “suffers from 
an impulse-control disorder known as ‘intermittent explosive disorder’ along with 
a depressive disorder”; (2) a diagnosis of “antisocial personality disorder”; (3) a 
diagnosis of “having a ‘[p]ersonality disorder, mixed type with avoidant, antisocial 
and passive-aggressive features’ ”; and (4) at the time of the murder, Grim “was 
taking two medications, Prozac and Depakote, which were targeted for the 
intermittent explosive disorder,” however the impact of the medications was not 
established.5 
 
As to other statutory mitigating circumstances, the trial court determined that 
Grim (1) “had a disruptive home life,” which “certainly had an impact upon him,” 
(2) had a “shining” employment background since returning to Northwest Florida 
on parole from Texas; (3) had “a history of alcohol usage,” which included being 
                                          
 
5.  The sentencing order stated that although “Dr. Larson was comfortable in 
saying the murder did not occur while the Defendant was ‘experiencing psychosis 
in the sense of responding to delusions or hallucinations,’ . . . Dr. Larson could not 
rule out some kind of drug interaction with the Defendant’s disorders.” 
 
 
- 7 - 
“discharged from the military for substance related charges,” and (4) “suffers from 
significant, long-term mental problems.”  This Court’s case law makes clear “the 
importance and significance of this kind of mitigation evidence.”  Williams v. 
State, 987 So. 2d 1, 14 (Fla. 2008). 
 
As to nonstatutory mitigating circumstances, the trial court determined that 
Grim (1) received psychiatric care in 1983; (2) “was in the throes of a divorce at 
the time of this murder” and “had even sought legal advice from his victim”; 
(3) makes “ ‘appalling errors of judgment’ when under stress”; (4) had “been a 
model inmate . . . for over two years while awaiting trial”; and (5) “was first 
confined for a short time while in the Navy” at twenty-two years old.  After 
weighing the aggravation and mitigation and “duly consider[ing] the jury 
recommendation,” the trial court sentenced Grim to death.   
On direct appeal, consistent with Muhammad, this Court denied Grim’s 
claim that the trial court should have required special counsel to present mitigation 
evidence to the penalty phase jury, stating: “We . . . continue to hold that a trial 
court should not be required to appoint special counsel for purposes of presenting 
mitigating evidence to a penalty phase jury if the defendant has knowingly and 
voluntarily waived the presentation of such evidence.”  Grim I, 841 So. 2d at 461.  
In my specially concurring opinion, I wrote that “I would adopt a uniform 
procedure requiring the appointment of special counsel to present available 
 
 
- 8 - 
mitigation.”  Id. at 465 (Pariente, J., specially concurring).  This kind of procedure 
has yet to be adopted. 
ANALYSIS 
In 1978, in Goode v. State, 365 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 1978), this Court stated: 
[E]ven though [the defendant] expressed a desire to be executed, this 
Court must, nevertheless, examine the record to be sure that the 
imposition of the death sentence complies with all of the standards set 
by the Constitution, the Legislature and the courts. 
 
Id. at 384.  Subsequently, the Court set forth various procedures for doing so but, 
as explained above, left any presentation of mitigating evidence beyond the 
presentence investigation report to the trial court’s discretion.  Muhammad, 782 
So. 2d at 364. 
Concurring specially in Muhammad, I set forth a proposed procedure for 
trial courts appointing special counsel to present mitigation to the jury when a 
defendant waives the same: 
Because of the tremendous responsibilities placed on the trial 
court and this Court in death penalty cases, rather than leave the 
appointment of counsel to the trial court’s discretion on a case-by-case 
basis, I would thus adopt a prospective rule that would provide for the 
appointment of special counsel to present available mitigation for the 
benefit of the jury, the trial court and this Court in order to assist the 
judiciary in performing our statutory and constitutional obligations.  
 
Id. at 370 (Pariente, J., specially concurring) (emphasis added).   
In 2017, on remand from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in 
Hurst v. Florida, this Court made clear in Hurst that the death penalty “must be 
 
 
- 9 - 
reserved only for defendants convicted of the most aggravated and least mitigated 
of murders,” as determined by a jury.  202 So. 3d at 60 (emphasis added).  
Therefore, “Hurst changed the calculus for waiving the presentation of some or all 
of the mitigating evidence to a jury.”  Kaczmar, 228 So. 3d at 16 (Pariente, J., 
concurring in part and dissenting in part).  Thus, in light of Hurst v. Florida and 
Hurst, which “clearly changed the dynamics between the judge and the jury in 
Florida capital sentencing,” id., this Court should adopt a “prospective rule that 
would provide for the appointment of special counsel to present available 
mitigation for the benefit of the jury,” whose role we now know is critical to the 
constitutional imposition of the death penalty.  Muhammad, 782 So. 2d at 370 
(Pariente, J., specially concurring).   
Regardless of whether this Court alters the requirements of Muhammad, it is 
clear that trial courts and litigants have an independent obligation to ensure that the 
jury, as sentencer, receives all the necessary information to make the 
constitutionally required findings of fact before recommending a sentence of death. 
See Hurst, 202 So. 3d at 44.  Those findings, of course, include finding 
unanimously the existence of each aggravating factor, the sufficiency of the 
aggravators to impose death, that the aggravation outweighs the mitigation, and, 
finally, a unanimous vote that death is the appropriate sentence.  See id. 
 
 
- 10 - 
Aside from addressing this issue prospectively, the question arises how a 
defendant waiving mitigation affects whether a Hurst error is harmless beyond a 
reasonable doubt.  As I explained in Muhammad, “[a]lthough the defendant may 
have a right to plead guilty, the defendant has no corresponding ‘right’ after 
conviction to have the death penalty imposed based on a waiver of the right to 
present mitigation.”  782 So. 2d at 369 (Pariente, J., specially concurring).  Further, 
“it is not necessarily those most deserving of the death penalty . . . who seek its 
imposition and refuse to present mitigation.  Rather, in some cases, those seeking 
the death penalty, while competent, may suffer from serious underlying mental 
illnesses.”  Id.  In fact, whether a defendant suffers from such mental illness is 
exactly the type of mitigation that would be appropriately presented by special 
counsel, as the trial court’s sentencing order in this case reflects.   
As the United States Supreme Court stated in Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 
30 (2009), “the Constitution requires that ‘the sentencer in capital cases must be 
permitted to consider any relevant mitigating factor.’ ”  Id. at 42 (quoting Eddings 
v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 112 (1982)).  Likewise, it is clear that a jury not 
apprised of mitigating evidence cannot properly make all of the requisite findings 
of fact required to constitutionally impose death—namely, that the aggravation 
outweighs the mitigation and, further, that death is an appropriate sentence.  See 
Hurst, 202 So. 3d at 40-42.  In Hurst, this Court stated that “[i]f death is to be 
 
 
- 11 - 
imposed, unanimous jury sentencing recommendations, when made in conjunction 
with the other critical findings unanimously found by the jury, provide the highest 
degree of reliability in meeting these constitutional requirements in the capital 
sentencing process.”  Id. at 60.  Therefore, the Hurst error cannot be harmless 
beyond a reasonable doubt in a case where mitigating evidence existed but was not 
presented to the penalty phase jury.  See Kaczmar, 228 So. 3d at 16-17 (Pariente, 
J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 
THIS CASE 
Hurst applies retroactively to Grim’s sentence of death, which became final 
in 2003.  See Mosley v. State, 209 So. 3d 1248, 1283 (Fla. 2016).  Although the 
trial court appointed special counsel to present mitigation at the Spencer hearing 
and recognized in its sentencing order that the penalty phase jury did not have the 
benefit of hearing mitigation, I cannot conclude, in light of Hurst, that the lack of 
mitigation was remedied.  The jury in Grim’s case was left with no choice but to 
recommend death because they did not hear any evidence of mitigation.  Thus, the 
jury’s unanimous recommendation for death in Grim’s case is unreliable and 
cannot support the conclusion that the Hurst error is harmless beyond a reasonable 
doubt. 
 
 
- 12 - 
CONCLUSION 
For the reasons fully explained above, I cannot conclude that the Hurst error 
was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and would, therefore, reverse and remand 
for a new penalty phase.  
  Accordingly, I dissent. 
QUINCE, J., concurs. 
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Santa Rosa County,  
Ross M. Goodman, Judge - Case No. 571998CF000510XXAXMX  
 
Billy H. Nolas, Chief, Capital Habeas Unit, Office of the Federal Public Defender, 
Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
for Appellant 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lisa A. Hopkins, Assistant Attorney 
General, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
for Appellee