Opinion ID: 1854566
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Weight of Aggravators

Text: Next, Carter argues that the trial court's assignment of great weight to the burglary and prior violent felony aggravators was erroneous because the jury considered the same aggravators as they applied to the death of Smith and recommended a life sentence. We disagree. The weight to be given aggravating factors is within the discretion of the trial court and is subject to the abuse of discretion standard. Sexton v. State, 775 So.2d 923, 934 (Fla.2000). Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the aggravators. Under section 921.141(3), Florida Statutes (2002), the trial court must independently determine the existence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the weight to be given each. See State v. Steele, 921 So.2d 538, 546 (Fla.2005) (Our current system fosters independence because the trial court alone must make detailed findings about the existence and weight of aggravating circumstances; it has no jury findings on which to rely.); Blackwelder v. State, 851 So.2d 650, 653 (Fla.2003); Bouie v. State, 559 So.2d 1113, 1116 (Fla.1990). The court did not abuse its discretion in giving the prior violent felony conviction aggravator more weight as applied to the murders of Pafford and Reed because one of the convictions supporting this aggravator was the contemporaneous murder of Smith, a sixteen-year-old child. Similarly, it was not an abuse of discretion to attach more weight to the burglary aggravator as applied to Pafford and Reed because they were Carter's apparent targets. In other words, Carter's motive for unlawfully entering Reed's home was to commit a forcible felony against Pafford and Reed. He apparently did not form the intent to kill Smith until she came from her bedroom into the living room. Moreover, the weight given to these aggravators reflects the trial court's obligation to give great weight to the jury's life recommendation for the murder of Smith as well as its death recommendation for the murders of Pafford and Reed.
Carter next argues that the trial court erred because its sentencing order lacks clarity. Specifically, Carter claims that the court abused its discretion by not expressly considering the jury's recommendation of life for the murder of Smith when sentencing Carter to death for the murders of Pafford and Reed. We disagree. Under section 921.141(3), Florida Statutes (2002), the trial court is required to make independent findings on aggravation, mitigation, and weight, supported by specific written findings of fact. § 921.141(3), Fla. Stat. (2002). Here, there was no abuse of discretion because the trial court thoroughly considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances at issue and supported each with specific written findings of fact. Dennis v. State, 817 So.2d 741, 763 (Fla.2002). Moreover, the trial court's sentencing order was consistent with the jury's recommendations. See Tedder v. State, 322 So.2d 908, 910 (Fla.1975) (A jury recommendation under our trifurcated death penalty statute should be given great weight.).
Carter next claims that the State is bound by its letter to Mexican officials offering to forego the death penalty if the Mexican government returned him to the United States. He argues that the State must adhere to its offer under contract principles and the doctrine of judicial estoppel. This claim is meritless. First, under contract principles, the State did not receive the benefit of the bargain. There was no quid pro quo. Cf. State v. Swett, 772 So.2d 48, 52 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) ([T]he plea was part of a deal whereby the prosecutor reduced the murder charge to second degree murder in exchange for the plea. The sentence was part of a quid pro quo and the defendant cannot accept the benefit of the bargain without accepting its burden.). The State's promise was conditioned upon the Mexican government's return of Carter. That condition was never fulfilled because the Mexican government released Carter before the State's letter reached the appropriate officials. He was subsequently arrested in Kentucky with no help or assistance from the government of Mexico. Therefore, the State is not bound by its offer. Second, the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply. Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that is used to prevent litigants from taking totally inconsistent positions in separate judicial, including quasi-judicial, proceedings. Blumberg v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 790 So.2d 1061, 1066 (Fla.2001) (quoting Smith v. Avatar Properties, Inc., 714 So.2d 1103, 1107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)). The doctrine prevents parties from making a mockery of justice by inconsistent pleadings, American Nat'l Bank v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 710 F.2d 1528, 1536 (11th Cir. 1983), and playing fast and loose with the courts. Russell v. Rolfs, 893 F.2d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir.1990). In this case, the State has not taken inconsistent positions in any relevant judicial proceeding. The letter at issue was a communication between the State and the Mexican government while Carter was confined in Mexico. Mexico released Carter from custody prior to receiving the letter and did not turn him over to the State of Florida. Carter was apprehended in Kentucky months later. The State's ultimate decision to seek the death penalty does not impair the integrity of the courts of Florida.
Next, Carter argues that his sentence is unconstitutional under the United States Supreme Court's decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 609, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). We disagree. The three contemporaneous murders were charged in the indictment, and Carter was convicted on each count by a unanimous jury. See Doorbal v. State, 837 So.2d 940, 963 (Fla.2003). These convictions formed the basis for the trial court's finding of the prior violent felony conviction aggravator. See Overton v. State, 976 So.2d 536 (Fla. 2007) (rejecting Ring claim where one of the aggravating circumstances was defendant's prior convictions for contemporaneous murders); Hannon v. State, 941 So.2d 1109, 1147 (Fla.2006); Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 377 (Fla.2004); see also Jones v. State, 855 So.2d 611, 619 (Fla.2003) (holding that the prior violent felony conviction aggravator is a factor which under Apprendi and Ring need not be found by the jury).
Next, Carter claims that the trial court erred in giving standard jury instructions which diminished the jury's sense of responsibility for sentencing. As we have found on numerous prior occasions, this claim lacks merit. See Rodriguez v. State, 919 So.2d 1252, 1280 (Fla. 2005); Thomas v. State, 838 So.2d 535 (Fla.2003); Burns v. State, 699 So.2d 646, 654 (Fla.1997); Sochor v. State, 619 So.2d 285, 291-92 (Fla.1993).
Carter does not raise the issue of proportionality. However, this Court conducts a review of each death sentence for proportionality, regardless of whether the issue is raised on appeal. England v. State, 940 So.2d 389, 407 (Fla.2006); Porter v. State, 564 So.2d 1060, 1064 (Fla.1990) (Because death is a unique punishment, it is necessary in each case to engage in a thoughtful, deliberate proportionality review to consider the totality of circumstances in a case, and to compare it with other capital cases.); Fla. R.App. P. 9.142(a)(6) (In death penalty cases, whether or not insufficiency of the evidence or proportionality is an issue presented for review, the court shall review these issues and, if necessary, remand for the appropriate relief.). Domestic situations are evaluated in the same manner as other cases. See, e.g., Butler v. State, 842 So.2d 817 (Fla.2003); Lynch v. State, 841 So.2d 362 (Fla.2003). The circumstances of this case are similar to those in Porter. George Porter was sentenced to death for the murders of his ex-live-in lover, Evelyn Williams, and her new boyfriend, Walter Burrows. Porter, 564 So.2d at 1061-62. In the two days immediately preceding the murder, Porter was seen driving past Williams' house. Id. at 1061. The night before the murder, Porter visited Williams, who called the police because she was afraid of him. Porter then went to two cocktail lounges and consumed alcohol. Around 5:30 a.m. the next morning, Williams' daughter, Amber, awoke to gunshots, ran down the hallway, and saw Porter standing over her mother's body. Id. at 1062. Amber testified that Porter came toward her, pointed a gun at her head, and said, Boom, boom, you're going to die. Id. Burrows then came into the room, struggled with Porter, and forced him outside. Williams' son, John, who lived next door, testified that he heard gunshot blasts, ran outside, and saw Burrows lying face down in the front lawn. Both Williams and Burrows were dead by the time police arrived on the scene. On appeal, this Court held that the imposition of the death penalty was not disproportionate to other cases decided by the Court. Id. at 1065 (citing Turner v. State, 530 So.2d 45 (Fla.1987)). After we struck the heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC) aggravator and upheld the CCP aggravator, the remaining aggravators were: (1) prior violent felony conviction (contemporaneous murders); (2) in the course of a burglary; and (3) CCP. Although our opinion did not list the mitigating circumstances found, we stated that [t]he circumstances of this case depict a cold-blooded, premeditated double murder. Id. at 1064. Similarly, in Dennis v. State, 817 So.2d 741 (Fla.2002), Labrant Dennis was sentenced to death for beating his former girlfriend, Timwanika Lumpkins, and her new boyfriend, Marlin Barnes, to death with the blunt end of a shotgun. The evidence showed that prior to the murders, Dennis procured a shotgun and ammunition, borrowed a friend's vehicle, and went to a club where he observed the victims together hugging and kissing. Dennis thereafter slashed Barnes' vehicle's tires and waited across the street as it was loaded onto a flatbed to be towed to Barnes' apartment complex. Once the victims returned to Barnes' apartment, Dennis broke in and killed them. Id. at 746-48. In sentencing Dennis to death, the trial judge found four aggravating circumstances: (1) prior violent felony conviction (the contemporaneous murder); (2) in the course of a burglary; (3) HAC; and (4) CCP. In mitigation, the court found: (1) that the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance; (2) a catchall category of mitigation, including the defendant's kindness to others and love and affection towards his family; and (3) good demeanor at trial. Id. at 750. On appeal, we held that Dennis's death sentences were proportionate because the trial court's findings in support of the CCP aggravator refuted his claim that the murders were committed in the heat of a domestic dispute. Id. at 767. Further, in Way v. State, 760 So.2d 903, 906 (Fla.2000), Fred Lewis Way murdered his wife Carol and their fifteen-year-old daughter Adrienne with a hammer and set them on fire. The jury convicted Way of second-degree murder for killing Carol and first-degree murder for killing Adrienne. Id. at 907. In sentencing Way to death for the murder of Adrienne, the trial court found three aggravating circumstances: (1) prior violent felony conviction (the contemporaneous second-degree murder of Carol); (2) that the murder was committed while engaged in the commission of arson; and (3) HAC. Id. at 908 n. 5. The trial court also found that the murder was cold, calculated, and premeditated, but did not rely on that finding because the State did not allege that the CCP aggravator was applicable. In mitigation, the trial court found two statutory mitigators: (1) no significant history of prior criminal activity; and (2) Way's age at the time of the crime (thirty-eight). Id. at 908 n. 6. The court also found six nonstatutory mitigators: (1) difficult childhood; (2) service in the Air Force and Air Force Reserve; (3) successful employment with the Federal Aviation Administration; (4) reputation for peacefulness and hard work; (5) hearing and mental impairments; and (6) good behavior in prison. Id. at 908 n. 7. This Court found that the death penalty was proportionate, noting that in contrast to other cases, there was no significant mental mitigation. Id. at 921. Like the death sentences in Porter, Dennis, and Way, Carter's death sentences are proportionate. As in Porter, [t]he circumstances of this case depict a cold-blooded, premeditated [triple] murder. 564 So.2d at 1064. The aggravation in this case was substantial and included the same three aggravators found in Porter. Further, as in Way, there was no statutory or mental mitigation, and the nonstatutory mitigation included factors such as difficult childhood, service in the Air Force, good employment record, and good prison record. All four cases involved multiple domestic murders, but as in Dennis, evidence of Carter's heightened premeditation negates any claim that the murders were committed in the heat of a domestic dispute.