Opinion ID: 1901325
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Contribution to Community and Church Attendance

Text: Finally, Hurst argues that the trial judge erred in assigning little weight to both Hurst's contribution to his community and to his regular attendance at church. [10] Hurst claims the trial judge improperly minimized the weight of mitigation associated with Hurst's contributions to the community and his religious activities. Hurst notes that the State did not rebut any of the evidence presented and the court did not give any reason that Hurst's family members were not credible. Hurst also cites to this Court's opinion in Nibert v. State, 574 So.2d 1059 (Fla.1990), for the proposition that a trial court is not free to reject, without reason, unrefuted testimony regarding mitigating evidence. In Nibert this Court found that the trial court erred when it found possible mitigation where the defendant had undergone years of physical and psychological abuse as a child, but then dismissed the mitigation because the defendant was now an adult. Nibert, 574 So.2d at 1062. We rejected this analysis as inapposite because [t]he fact that a defendant had suffered through more than a decade of psychological abuse during the defendant's formative childhood and adolescent years is in no way diminished by the fact that the abuse finally came to an end. Id. However, in the instant case, the trial court found that Hurst's religious activities and community service provided some mitigation, but that the evidence did not establish either mitigating circumstance to any appreciable degree and, thus, the court gave each mitigating circumstance little weight. Further, even though the State did not rebut Hurst's family members' testimony, it is still within the trial court's discretion to assign the appropriate amount of weight to this circumstance. Banks v. State, 700 So.2d 363, 368 (Fla. 1997) (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting defendant's religious activities as mitigating). The trial court's conclusions as to the weight of mitigating circumstances will be sustained by this Court if the conclusions are supported by sufficient evidence in the record. Campbell, 571 So.2d at 420. In fact, even the testimony of Hurst's family members was limited as to his religious activities and contribution to the community. Only Hurst's parents provided testimony as to these mitigating circumstances, and as to Hurst's contribution to the community, there was no elaboration as to what his contribution was or how Hurst helped out in the neighborhood. Clearly, the instant case can be distinguished from a case where a number of nonfamilial community or church members provide extensive testimony on the defendant's behalf. Under the circumstances presented, we find no error in the trial court's decision assigning little weight to these two nonstatutory mitigating factors.