Opinion ID: 1931326
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Weighing of All Mitigating Evidence in the Record

Text: Spann waived the presentation of mitigation, argued that the trial court did not consider all of the mitigation, and now argues that the mitigation the court did consider and found to exist was not given sufficient weight. The weight assigned to a mitigating circumstance is within the trial court's discretion and subject to the abuse of discretion standard. Elledge v. State, 706 So.2d 1340, 1347 (Fla. 1997) (finding trial court did not abuse its discretion in providing weight to the mitigating circumstances because the Court could not say that no reasonable person would give this circumstance [little] weight in the calculus of this crime); accord Huff v. State, 569 So.2d 1247, 1249 (Fla.1990) ([D]iscretion is abused only where no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court.). Spann argues that the trial court abused its discretion in assigning weight to three of the mitigating circumstances: that Spann was a good son, good brother, and good student (little weight); that Spann had a good jail record (some weight); and that Spann was a good husband and father (slight weight). As stated above, it is well-settled law that it is within the discretion of the sentencing court to assign relative weight to each mitigating factor, and the sentencing court's finding will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of discretion. See Trease v. State, 768 So.2d 1050, 1055 (Fla. 2000); see also Elledge v. State, 706 So.2d 1340, 1347 (Fla.1997). In this case, the trial court evaluated the nonstatutory mitigation based on the information available in the record. If there was other information the trial court could have used to evaluate a potential mitigating factor, the defendant refused to present it. Cf. LaMarca v. State, 785 So.2d 1209, 1216 (Fla. 2001) (Because appellant waived the presentation of mitigating evidence, he cannot subsequently complain on appeal that the trial court erred in declining to find mitigating circumstances that might otherwise have been found....) It is illogical to accept the defendant's argument on appeal that a mitigating factor should have been found or greater weight should have been assigned based on evidence the defendant failed or refused to submit. Spann tied the hands of his trial counsel by refusing to allow any evidence in mitigation, and now argues the trial court should have sought a more detailed proffer concerning mitigation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Thus, this claim does not warrant a new penalty phase trial.