Opinion ID: 1670351
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: judicial findings of fact

Text: The Ring decision essentially holds that the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury mandates that a jury make the findings of fact necessary to impose the death sentence, and conversely, the Sixth Amendment precludes the imposition of the death sentence when the responsibility for such factfinding is done by a judge, as it is in Florida. Regardless of the jury's collective or individual advisory recommendation, Florida's death sentencing statute states that it is the trial court that shall enter a sentence of life imprisonment or death. § 921.141(3), Fla. Stat. (2001). Further, and critical to the resolution of the Ring issue, our statute provides, In each case in which the court imposes the death sentence, the determination of the court shall be supported by specific written findings of fact based upon the [aggravating and mitigating] circumstances ... and upon the records of the trial and the sentencing proceedings. Id. (emphasis supplied). Even in cases where the jury has given an advisory recommendation of death, [i]f the court does not make the findings requiring the death sentence within 30 days after the rendition of the judgment and sentence, the court shall impose sentence of life imprisonment. Id. [20] In Spencer v. State, 615 So.2d 688 (Fla. 1993), we explained the critical importance that the trial court plays in conducting capital sentencing under Florida law: In Grossman [v. State, 525 So.2d 833 (Fla.1988) ], we directed that written orders imposing the death sentence be prepared prior to the oral pronouncement of sentence. However, we did not perceive that our decision would be used in such a way that the trial judge would formulate his decision prior to giving the defendant an opportunity to be heard. We contemplated that the following procedure be used in sentencing phase proceedings. First, the trial judge should hold a hearing to: a) give the defendant, his counsel, and the State, an opportunity to be heard; b) afford, if appropriate, both the State and the defendant an opportunity to present additional evidence; c) allow both sides to comment on or rebut information in any presentence or medical report; and d) afford the defendant an opportunity to be heard in person. Second, after hearing the evidence and argument, the trial judge should then recess the proceeding to consider the appropriate sentence. If the judge determines that the death sentence should be imposed, then, in accordance with section 921.141, Florida Statutes (1983), the judge must set forth in writing the reasons for imposing the death sentence.... It is the circuit judge who has the principal responsibility for determining whether a death sentence should be imposed. Id. at 690-91. The judge's written findings are of the utmost importance, of course, for the very reason that the jury makes no findings of fact, but rather provides only an advisory recommendation to the sentencing judge by a simple majority, nonunanimous vote as to whether a particular defendant should be put to death. That Florida's sentencing scheme relies exclusively upon the findings of fact made by the trial judge is perhaps best evidenced by the hundreds of opinions this Court has rendered interpreting Florida's current death penalty scheme since the death penalty was reenacted into Florida law a quarter century ago. In those opinions this Court has consistently reviewed and relied on the factual findings of judges, rather than juries, to determine whether the death penalty was properly imposed. See, e.g., Morton v. State, 789 So.2d 324, 333 (Fla.2001) (The sentencing order is the foundation for this Court's proportionality review, which may ultimately determine if a person lives or dies.).