Opinion ID: 2534158
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Pecuniary Gain, CCP, and Proportionality

Text: With respect to this claim, Twilegar contends that the trial court erred in finding pecuniary gain and CCP as aggravating circumstances, and he contends that his death sentence is disproportionate. We disagree. With respect to the standard of review for aggravating circumstances, the Court has held that it is not this Court's job to reweigh the evidence to determine whether the State proved each aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, for that is the trial court's job. Willacy v. State, 696 So.2d 693, 695 (Fla.1997). Rather, our task on appeal is to review the record to determine whether the trial court applied the right rule of law for each aggravating circumstance and, if so, whether competent substantial evidence supports its finding. Id. First, with respect to the pecuniary gain aggravating circumstance, the Court has held that [i]n order to establish this aggravating factor, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to obtain money, property, or other financial gain. Finney v. State, 660 So.2d 674, 680 (Fla.1995). In the present case, the trial court applied the proper rule of law for this aggravating circumstance, [6] and the court's finding that this aggravator was established is supported by competent, substantial evidence. [7] Second, with respect to the CCP aggravating circumstance, the Court has held as follows: Thus, in order to find the CCP aggravating factor under our case law, the jury must 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. Jackson v. State, 648 So.2d 85, 89 (Fla. 1994) (citations omitted). In the present case, the court applied the proper rule of law for this aggravating circumstance, [8] and the court's finding that this aggravator was established is supported by competent, substantial evidence. [9] And third, with respect to proportionality review, the Court has explained its role as follows: Because death is a unique punishment, it is necessary in each case to engage in a thoughtful, deliberate proportionality review to consider the totality of circumstances in a case, and to compare it with other capital cases. It is not a comparison between the number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Porter v. State, 564 So.2d 1060, 1064 (Fla. 1990) (citation omitted). In the present case, a review of the totality of the circumstances in this case shows that this case is comparable to other such cases where a sentence of death was imposed. [10] Accordingly, we conclude that Twilegar has failed to show that the trial court erred with respect to this claim.