Opinion ID: 75958
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: direct appeal of resentencing

Text: 57 On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's resentencing. Robinson II, 574 So.2d at 109. The Florida Supreme Court rejected Robinson's claims of error, including his claim that he should have been permitted to establish his intoxication at the time of the crime solely through the testimony of Dr. Krop. Id. at 111. The Florida Supreme Court reasoned that Robinson's hearsay statement to the doctor during a medical interview, in the absence of any evidence of impairment at trial, is insufficient to establish the existence of this mitigating circumstance. Id. (emphasis in the original). 58 On direct appeal, Robinson also argued that three of the six aggravating circumstances were unjustified. The Florida Supreme Court agreed in part, finding that the trial court erred in finding that this murder was heinous, atrocious, or cruel. Id. at 112. Yet the Florida Supreme Court was not persuaded that the outcome would be any different in light of the specific aggravating circumstances remaining — murder committed by a person under sentence of imprisonment; murder committed by person previously convicted of a violent felony; murder committed in the course of sexual battery and kidnapping; murder committed to avoid arrest; and murder committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner. Id.