Opinion ID: 1789377
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Impairment of Capacity to Appreciate the Criminality of Conduct

Text: Philmore next claims that the trial court erred in rejecting the statutory mitigator of the substantial impairment of Philmore's capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. In rejecting the application of this statutory mitigator, the trial court explained in its sentencing order: The Court recognizes that this circumstance comes into play when a defendant has mental problems that limit his capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. While the Court incorporates it's discussion in relation to the first statutory mitigator discussed, it understands it is separate and distinct from this statutory mitigating circumstance. The criminal episode from the time of the abduction of the victim to the time of her murder took approximately thirty minutes. During this time, the defendant rode with the victim and he indicated that she was crying and frightened. The defendant clearly had time to reflect on the impending homicide. He reached logical decisions on how to effect the carjacking, kidnapping, homicide and robbery. Further, he reached a calculated planned decision on how to prevent the victim from notifying the police and identifying him. His own expert opined that he could appreciate the criminality of his conduct stating that though, he knew what he was doing was wrongthat there was some pressure on him that was not under his control that pushed him into this situation. Not that made him do it, but helped him push him into the situation. The record evidence suggests that the defendant was not using drugs on the day of the homicide, and the states' expert testified that neither the defendant's drug use or history of drug use diminished his capacity or influenced his behavior on November 14, 1997. For the reasons stated above the Court rejects the existence of this statutory mitigating circumstance. We conclude that the trial court's rejection of this statutory mitigator is supported by competent substantial evidence. As noted in the previous two claims, Dr. Berland's testimony was substantially refuted by the State, both through cross-examination, and through the testimony of Dr. Landrum. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's rejection of this statutory mitigator.