Opinion ID: 1854566
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Burglary and CCP Aggravators

Text: Carter first claims that the trial court erred in finding that the murders of Pafford and Reed were committed during the course of a burglary and in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification. [3] When evaluating claims alleging error in the application of aggravating factors, this Court does not reweigh the evidence to determine whether the State proved each factor beyond a reasonable doubt. See Alston v. State, 723 So.2d 148, 160 (Fla.1998). Rather, [o]ur review of a trial court's finding of an aggravating factor is limited to determining whether the trial court applied the right rule of law and, if so, whether competent, substantial evidence supports its finding. Hutchinson v. State, 882 So.2d 943, 958 (Fla.2004). When there is a legal basis to support finding an aggravating factor, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. . . . Occhicone v. State, 570 So.2d 902, 905 (Fla. 1990). Carter argues that the trial court's application of the burglary aggravator was erroneous because the 2001 revision of the burglary statute has such an expansive reach that using it as a justification for imposing death no longer genuinely narrows the class of capital defendants eligible for a death sentence. See Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 877, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983) ([A]n aggravating circumstance must genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty and must reasonably justify the imposition of a more severe sentence on the defendant compared to others found guilty of murder.). We disagree. The 2001 amendment to the burglary statute was intended to repudiate this Court's decision in Delgado v. State, 776 So.2d 233 (Fla.2000), and to clarify, not broaden, the definition of burglary. See § 810.015(1)(2), Fla. Stat. (2002); ch.2001-58, § 1, Laws of Fla. [4] Moreover, competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court's and the jury's conclusion that the murders of Pafford and Reed were committed in the course of a burglary. Carter either entered Reed's home uninvited with the intent to commit murder therein, or, notwithstanding an invitation, remained in her home to commit or attempt to commit a forcible felony. See § 810.02(1)(b)(1), (2)(c). Carter's challenge to the trial court's CCP finding is likewise meritless. As the trial court found, [t]he trial testimony in the guilt phase of this case proves beyond all reasonable doubt the existence of this aggravating circumstance. In its sentencing order, the trial court supported its conclusion with the following record facts: Christian Carter, Ms. Reed's neighbor, testified that he encountered the Defendant in his side yard sometime between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. ten days to two weeks prior to the instant murders. Christian Carter testified that the Defendant appeared to be coming from his backyard which abutted Ms. Reed's backyard. Christian Carter testified that when he began to use a telephone the Defendant became nervous and ran toward a red truck parked across the street from Mr. Carter's home and drove away. Terry Booth, Christian Carter's neighbor, testified that he also saw a red Dodge truck parked on his street and a man walking between neighbors' houses the Friday before the instant murders occurred. Mr. Booth testified that he saw the man look in his direction then look at a telephone pole, and after about five minutes, the man walked back to the truck and drove away. Mr. Booth testified that the next day, he saw the same red Dodge truck parked on his street. Finally, Mr. Booth testified that the man in the truck looked like the suspect the police were looking for regarding the instant murders. At trial, the Defendant admitted that he had indeed been in Christian Carter's yard a couple of weeks before the murders. The Defendant testified that he was in the yard because he was jealous that Ms. Reed was seeing Glenn Pafford and wanted to confirm if Mr. Pafford was at Ms. Reed's home. The Defendant stated he conducted this surveillance because he was jealous that Ms. Reed was seeing Mr. Pafford. The Defendant admitted he drove past Ms. Reed's home at approximately 9:00 p.m. on July 23, 2002, and saw both Ms. Reed's and Ms. Smith's cars along with Mr. Pafford's truck in the driveway. The Defendant admitted that he then drove home and called Ms. Reed's home around 11:15 p.m. The Defendant testified that he spoke to Rick Smith, Ms. Reed's son. Rick Smith told the Defendant that Ms. Reed was not home. This testimony was corroborated by Rick Smith who testified that the Defendant called Ms. Reed's home between 11:00 and 11:30 p.m. on July 23, 2002, and because Ms. Reed did not want to speak with the Defendant, he told the Defendant that his mother was not home. The Defendant's and Rick Smith's testimony was further corroborated by Jack Harley of BellSouth, who testified that the Defendant's telephone records showed a telephone call to Ms. Reed's home at 11:24 p.m. on July 23, 2002. The Defendant admitted driving to Ms. Reed's home with a fully loaded .22 caliber rifle in his truck and when he arrived at her home he got out of his truck carrying the rifle. The Defendant admitted he took the rifle to prevent Ms. Reed from saying that she was not going to talk to him and to ensure that she answered his questions regarding their relationship. The Defendant testified that when he entered Ms. Reed's home, he concealed the rifle against his leg so that no one would see it. The Defendant also testified that his finger was on the trigger. The Defendant testified that he told Ms. Reed and Mr. Pafford that he was not going to leave Ms. Reed's home until he had answers to his questions regarding his relationship with Ms. Reed. The Defendant testified that when Ms. Reed saw the rifle, she grabbed for it. The Defendant and Ms. Reed struggled over the rifle, and during the struggle, the rifle discharged striking Courtney Smith once in the head. The Defendant admitted that he then intentionally shot Ms. Reed twice in the head and then intentionally shot Glenn Pafford three times in the head, including one shot at point blank range. The Defendant further admitted that he was a good shot and that all of his shots hit their intended targets. However, he testified that he did not intentionally aim at Courtney Smith when she was shot once in the head. The Defendant testified that after shooting Glenn Pafford, Elizabeth Reed and Courtney Smith, he walked, rifle in hand, to his pickup truck and drove away. In addition, the trial court cited the testimony of Dr. Margarita Arruza, a forensic pathologist, who described the gunshot wounds suffered by Pafford and Reed. Arruza concluded that both victims were shot multiple times in the head at close range. These findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence and support the trial court's conclusion that the murders of Pafford and Reed were committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification. See Swafford v. State, 533 So.2d 270, 277 (Fla.1988) (holding that cold, calculated, and premeditated murder can be indicated by circumstances showing such facts as advance procurement of a weapon, lack of resistance or provocation, and the appearance of a killing carried out as a matter of course) (citing Burr v. State, 466 So.2d 1051, 1054 (Fla.1985); Eutzy v. State, 458 So.2d 755, 757 (Fla.1984)). [5] Even if we were to assume that the trial court erred in finding either or both of these aggravators, such error would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court concluded that any of the considered aggravating circumstances found in this case, standing alone, would be sufficient to outweigh the mitigation in total presented regarding the murders of Glenn Pafford and Elizabeth Reed. We agree. Any of the aggravators found in this case would outweigh Carter's mitigation. See Green v. State, 641 So.2d 391, 396 (Fla.1994) (citing State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1139 (Fla.1986)).