Opinion ID: 1896204
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Sufficient Evidence of Aggravation and Mitigation

Text: In this issue, Chamberlain attacks the trial court's findings on aggravation and mitigation. Regarding the aggravators, Chamberlain generally alleges that the evidence submitted in the instant case did not support any of the aggravating factors found by the trial court. However, he specifically challenges only the finding of CCP. Although not raised by Chamberlain, we first address the improper doubling of aggravators. We note that the trial court found that Chamberlain committed the murder both (1) for pecuniary gain, and (2) during the course of a felony (robbery). Generally, when a homicide occurs during the course of a robbery, it is improper for the trial court to find as aggravation both that the homicide was committed during the course of a robbery and that the homicide was committed for pecuniary gain. See Barnhill, 834 So.2d at 836, 851; Provence v. State, 337 So.2d 783, 786 (Fla.1976). Therefore, we conclude that the trial court erred in finding both commission for pecuniary gain and commission during the course of a robbery as aggravating factors. Accordingly, we merge these aggravators. We next address CCP. [T]he trial judge's ruling on an aggravating circumstance will be sustained on review as long as the court applied the right rule of law and its ruling is supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. Barnhill, 834 So.2d at 850-51. For the trial court to find CCP, four factors must be established by the evidence: [T]he jury must first determine that the killing was the product of cool and calm reflection and not an act prompted by emotional frenzy, panic, or a fit of rage (cold); and that the defendant had a careful plan or prearranged design to commit murder before the fatal incident (calculated); and that the defendant exhibited heightened premeditation (premeditated); and that the defendant had no pretense of moral or legal justification. Id. at 851 (quoting Jackson v. State, 648 So.2d 85, 89 (Fla.1994)). It is clear that Chamberlain's claim that the evidence does not support the trial court's finding of the CCP aggravator for the murders of Harrison and Kenyan is without merit. The trial court stated in its sentencing order: The final two homicides are remarkable because they are methodical. They are performed in a systematic way. The decision to take life is clearly present in the minds of all three (Thibault, Chamberlain, and Ingman) at the time of the killings. ... What is revealed here is a calculated plan to eliminate that begins with debate, consumes appreciable time and is conducted with the two men (Thibault and Chamberlain) acting in concert. It is concrete and heightened, and it all takes place during a continuing robbery that is a virtual marathon of taking. .... Chamberlain provides transportation and the gun. He initiates the idea of witness elimination, and it is he who directs, prods and encourages Thibault in the final executions. These findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence. Regarding the applicability of the criteria for CCP to these facts, we also conclude that the execution-style nature of the killings is particularly compelling in this case. These wholly unnecessary, execution-style murders are prime examples of the deliberate ruthlessness for which application of the CCP aggravating factor is reserved. See Zack v. State, 753 So.2d 9, 21 (Fla.2000); see also McCoy v. State, 853 So.2d 396, 408 (Fla.2003) (affirming CCP where evidence established that there were no signs of physical struggle at the crime scene, the appellant had ample opportunity to leave after completing the robbery, and he unnecessarily executed a compliant hostage execution style ); Looney v. State, 803 So.2d 656, 678 (Fla.2001) (applying CCP where the defendants had ample opportunity to reflect upon their actions, following which they mutually decided to shoot the victims execution-style ), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 966, 122 S.Ct. 2678, 153 L.Ed.2d 850 (2002); Alston v. State, 723 So.2d 148, 162 (Fla.1998) (sustaining the CCP aggravator where the appellant had ample opportunity to release [the victim] after the robbery, but chose to kill him); Eutzy v. State, 458 So.2d 755, 757 (Fla.1984) (sustaining CCP where there was no sign of struggle, and the victim was shot execution-style ). However, we agree with Chamberlain that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court's finding that the murder of Ketchum was cold, calculated, and premeditated. There is no evidence that before they placed Ketchum and Harrison in the bathroom, Thibault and Chamberlain formulated a calculated plan to murder the victims. Moreover, it is undisputed that Ketchum's death occurred during a struggle in the bathroom after Ketchum rushed Thibault. Although Thibault may have formulated an intent to kill Ketchum during the attack, the totality of the circumstances indicate an absence of the heightened premeditation by Chamberlain necessary for application of this aggravator. However, as four other valid aggravators exist in this case  (1) previously convicted of a felony and on probation; (2) previous violent felony conviction (the contemporaneous murder convictions); (3) murder committed while engaged in a robbery/pecuniary gain (merged); and (4) murder committed to avoid arrest  any error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court has determined that errors in finding aggravators were harmless in analogous cases. See, e.g., Sireci v. Moore, 825 So.2d 882, 887 (Fla.2002) (even assuming that insufficient evidence existed to support the trial court's finding of CCP, any error was harmless because four other valid aggravators existed); Zack v. State, 753 So.2d 9, 20 (Fla.2000) (finding wrongful application of the avoiding a lawful arrest aggravator harmless error where four other valid aggravators  prior violent felonies, pecuniary gain, HAC, and CCP  existed); Guzman v. State, 721 So.2d 1155, 1162 (Fla.1998) (upholding imposition of the death penalty where the CCP aggravator was overturned but the remaining four other aggravators  prior violent felony, committed in the course of a robbery, HAC, and avoiding arrest  existed). Finally, we address the trial court's findings regarding mitigation. As mitigation Chamberlain presented the testimony of six witnesses, including two mental health counselors. The trial court stated in its sentencing order: There are some factors in the defendant's background that are mitigating in nature. There was some abuse by his cousins and the testimony is that they introduced him to criminal conduct. On the other hand he sought their company. He wanted to be with them and did not appear to have other friends. At some point their relationship became brotherly and currently it is described as loving and affectionate. This is mitigation of some weight which I rank as slight. And he was neglected by his parents.... The parental neglect in this case, while serious, is not as devastating as many within my experience. Dr. Eugene Herman testified that Mr. Chamberlain's full scale IQ was in the high average range.... [His employers] reported that he was a good employee, a good kid, always respectful; never showed any signs of behavioral problems.... He had started to turn his life around. He obtained his GED and enrolled in the community college. The turbulence and trauma in his life took place for a few years starting when he was 8 years old. Our independent review of the record leads us to conclude that these findings on mitigation are supported by competent, substantial evidence.