Opinion ID: 1129352
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Weight Given to Mitigators

Text: Lastly, Schoenwetter contends the trial court erred in the weight it accorded to some of the mitigating circumstances. [9] In Campbell v. State, 571 So.2d 415 (Fla. 1990), this Court indicated that a trial court must find as a mitigating factor any factor reasonably established by the greater weight of the evidence and that is mitigating in nature. In Trease v. State, 768 So.2d 1050 (Fla.2000), we receded from Campbell to the extent it disallows trial courts from according no weight to a mitigating factor and recognize that there are circumstances where a mitigating circumstance may be found to be supported by the record, but given no weight. Trease, 768 So.2d at 1055. This Court also held in Kearse v. State, 770 So.2d 1119, 1133 (Fla. 2000), that deciding the weight to be given a mitigating circumstance is within the trial court's discretion, and that the trial court's decision will not be reversed except for an abuse of discretion. See also Blanco v. State, 706 So.2d 7, 10 (Fla.1997). In this case, the trial court did not refuse to consider or weigh any mitigating evidence presented by Schoenwetter. On the contrary, the record reflects that the trial court found four statutory mitigating circumstances and numerous nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. The trial court found as statutory mitigating circumstances the defendant's age, lack of prior criminal history, impaired capacity, and extreme mental or emotional disturbance. In addition, the trial court considered and found as mitigating such factors as acceptance of responsibility, sexual preoccupation from an early age, lack of a threat to the general prison population, gainful employment, and loving relationship with his family. The defendant, however, takes issue with the weight that was given to the four statutory mitigating circumstances, which were given little weight, and with the weight given to two of the nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. [10] Although Schoenwetter maintains these mitigating factors were not accorded the proper weight, he has failed to even argue, much less demonstrate, why the weight given by the trial judge was not appropriate under the facts of this case. The weight given to these mitigators lies within the discretion of the trial court, and there has been no showing that the trial court abused its discretion. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court's consideration of these mitigating factors.