Opinion ID: 1826001
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Concession of Aggravating Factors

Text: Stephens alleges that counsel conceded both the heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC) aggravator and the pecuniary gain aggravator to the jury during his closing argument. Stephens is mistaken as counsel did not concede either aggravator. With regard to the pecuniary gain aggravator, counsel explained to the jury that the aggravator should be merged with the murder in the course of a felony aggravator. Counsel explained that because Stephens had been convicted of robbery, which was one of the enumerated felonies recognized for the aggravating circumstance of murder in the course of a felony, the crime was for financial gain, and as a result, the two aggravators should merge. With regard to the HAC aggravator, counsel attempted to emphasize to the jury that the State had not proven the aggravator beyond a reasonable doubt. Counsel stated to the jury that they should give very little weight to the HAC aggravator because none of the medical testimonies demonstrated that Little Rob suffered from a prolonged, agonizing kind of death, which is necessary for the HAC aggravator to apply. Counsel also stated that there was no proof of enjoyment of punishment or some kind of pleasure in making Little Rob suffer the way he did. Because counsel did not concede either aggravator, Stephens fails to demonstrate that counsel was deficient under Strickland. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief on this claim.