Opinion ID: 1262655
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Commission for Anything of Pecuniary Value

Text: The trial court found as an aggravating circumstance against Robinson and Washington that the offense was committed in the expectation of receiving something of pecuniary value. A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(5). Prior to the slaying, the assailants demanded drugs and money from the Hills. Washington searched closets and drawers for valuables. A few items were stolen from the house, although most were later discovered abandoned in the neighborhood. Accordingly, the trial court's finding that Washington had a financial motive for participating in the murder is supported by the evidence. State v. Gretzler, 135 Ariz. 42, 49, 659 P.2d 1, 8, cert. denied, 461 U.S. 971, 103 S.Ct. 2444, 77 L.Ed.2d 1327 (1983). While Washington was motivated by greed, Robinson, on the other hand, suggests that any participation on his behalf was simply motivated by revenge, coupled with a desire to locate Susan. Nothing in the record even remotely suggests that the Hills were drug traffickers or that Robinson believed that they were. As between Robinson and Washington, only Robinson knew the Hills and their true status. In State v. Correll, 148 Ariz. 468, 479, 715 P.2d 721, 732 (1986), this court held that to establish this factor, the evidence must show that the hope of financial gain supplied the impetus for the murder. See also State v. Gillies (Gillies I), 135 Ariz. 500, 512, 662 P.2d 1007, 1019 (1983). There is no evidence that Robinson was motivated by the expectation of pecuniary gain. The trial court's finding on this factor as to Robinson is therefore set aside. However, the elimination of one aggravating factor does not mandate a remand to the trial court for resentencing when the record compels a finding on the issue as a matter of law. Clemons v. Mississippi, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 110 S.Ct. 1441, 1448, 108 L.Ed.2d 725, 737 (1990); State v. Emery, 141 Ariz. 549, 553, 688 P.2d 175, 179 (1984).