Opinion ID: 2686798
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: state trial court’s sentence

Text: Before the state trial court, defense counsel Wax argued for a non-capital sentence. As Wax began his argument, the state trial court interrupted him and said, “the lawyering in this case has been outstanding.” Wax then continued, noting that the jury’s advisory recommendation of death was by just a seven-tofive vote, which “ha[d] to be taken into account.” Wax asked the state trial court to take into account as non-statutory mitigating circumstances the following: Mendoza’s alcohol and drug abuse, Dr. Toomer’s finding of a major cognitive impairment, and Mendoza’s childhood trauma in Cuba and Peru. Over a month after the final hearing, the state trial court sentenced Mendoza. The state trial court found these three aggravating circumstances existed: 29 Case: 13-14968 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 30 of 58 (1) Mendoza was previously convicted of a felony involving violence to the person, see Fla. Stat. § 921.141(5)(a); (2) Mendoza committed a capital felony “while engaged, or was an accomplice, in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or in flight after committing, or attempting to commit [a] robbery,” see id. § 921.141(5)(d); and (3) Mendoza’s “capital felony was committed for pecuniary gain,” see id. § 921.141(5)(f). The state trial court merged the last two aggravating circumstances and considered them as one. The state trial court did not find any statutory mitigating circumstances. As for non-statutory mitigating circumstances, the state trial court stated that it had “take[n] into consideration the hardship suffered by [Mendoza] as a child in Peru and the effect of his own child’s medical problems” and rejected this mitigating factor. It determined that Mendoza’s co-defendants were not similarly situated to him with regard to participation, culpability, or acceptance of responsibility, and therefore, their non-capital sentences were not mitigating circumstances. The trial court stated that it had “taken into consideration” Mendoza’s “drug use and dependency” and gave it “minimal weight.” The trial court also gave “minimal weight” to allegations of mental health problems not reaching the level of the statutory mitigating circumstance. The court stated that it had considered all of the medical evidence and concluded that Mendoza’s mental problems did “not diminish [his] responsibility for the capital crime.” As for proportionality, the state 30 Case: 13-14968 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 31 of 58 trial court determined that, under Florida Supreme Court precedent, the death sentence was not disproportionate just because “a less culpable co-defendant receive[d] a less severe punishment.” In light of these findings, the state trial court sentenced Mendoza to death for his first-degree murder conviction. 15 On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Mendoza’s convictions and death sentence. See Mendoza I, 700 So. 2d at 679.