Opinion ID: 1772363
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: issue 3. cold, calculated, and premeditated aggravator

Text: Lawrence asserts that the trial court erroneously found the CCP aggravator. A trial court's ruling on an aggravating circumstance will be sustained on review as long as the trial court applied the right rule of law and its ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Gore v. State, 784 So.2d 418, 432 (Fla.2001). We hold that the trial court did not err in finding the CCP aggravator. To prove the CCP aggravator, the State must show a heightened level of premeditation establishing that the defendant had a careful plan or prearranged design to kill. Bell v. State, 699 So.2d 674, 677 (Fla.1997). Lawrence's confession regarding the Robinson murder, combined with the notes describing the planning of the murder as written by Lawrence, constitute competent, substantial evidence in the record that (1) the murder was the product of Lawrence's cool and calm reflection; (2) there was a careful plan or prearranged design to commit murder before the fatal incident; (3) Lawrence had heightened premeditation; and (4) there was no pretense of moral or legal justification for the murder. See Hoskins v. State, 702 So.2d 202, 210 (Fla.1997). The trial court's sentencing order clearly states and applies the correct rule of law for establishing the CCP aggravator, and sets forth the extensive factual information supporting that aggravator. See sentencing order at 3-8. Moreover, this Court has upheld findings of CCP aggravators in cases where the defendants were not the actual shooters. See, e.g., Ferrell v. State, 686 So.2d 1324, 1330 (Fla.1996); Archer v. State, 673 So.2d 17, 20 (Fla.1996); see also San Martin, 705 So.2d at 1349 (The fact that the plan called for [San Martin's codefendant] to shoot the victim does not negate the CCP aggravator as to San Martin.).