Opinion ID: 2741222
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial Court’s Failure to Remain Neutral

Text: In this claim, Davis argues that the trial court failed to remain neutral during the penalty phase of his trial by suggesting to the State that it pursue the avoid arrest aggravating circumstance during a jury instruction conference held on the morning of penalty-phase closing arguments. Davis contends that the State did not intend to pursue this aggravating circumstance until it was suggested by the trial court. - 17 - Before trial, the trial court ordered the State to provide defense counsel with notice of the aggravating factors that it planned to establish in seeking the death penalty. In compliance with this order, the State filed its Notice of Aggravating Circumstances on two separate occasions prior to the commencement of the guiltphase proceedings. Although the State ultimately sought the avoid arrest aggravating circumstance during the penalty phase, the State did not list the avoid arrest aggravator in either of its notices before trial. In support of his claim that the trial court failed to remain neutral, Davis relies on this Court’s decision in Robards v. State, 112 So. 3d 1256, 1268 (Fla. 2013), in which this Court addressed a situation where a trial court suggested an aggravating circumstance that the State had not considered. The State subsequently amended its Notice of Aggravating Circumstances to add the newly suggested aggravating circumstance. Id. This Court “strongly caution[ed] the trial court that it must remain neutral and avoid any appearance of partiality to any party,” but held that the trial court’s actions did not amount to fundamental error. Id. at 1268-69. Davis’s claim, however, is quite different than the claim raised by the defendant in Robards. Contrary to Davis’s assertions, we do not conclude in this case that the trial court suggested that the State pursue the avoid arrest aggravator. A careful reading of the portion of the trial transcript upon which Davis relies - 18 - shows that the trial court was actually referencing a set of proposed jury instructions during its discussion of the avoid arrest aggravator and did not, on its own volition, suggest to the State that it should pursue this aggravating circumstance. The trial court’s discussion of the applicability of the avoid arrest aggravator was predicated upon the existence of a set of jury instructions that included an instruction on that aggravator. Because the trial court did not suggest that the State pursue the avoid arrest aggravator, but instead, merely discussed the applicability of the avoid arrest jury instruction included in proposed jury instructions, this case is distinguishable from Robards. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not fail to remain neutral during Davis’s penalty-phase proceedings and reject this claim. III. Trial Court’s Findings on Aggravators and Mitigators Davis next challenges several of the trial court’s findings with respect to aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Specifically, Davis contends that the trial court erroneously rejected the statutory mitigating circumstance that he committed the murder while under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance, improperly weighed nonstatutory aggravators, and erroneously found the aggravating circumstances of CCP and that the murder was committed to avoid arrest. We address each of these claims in turn. A. Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance Mitigating Circumstance - 19 - In this claim, Davis contends that the trial court’s decision to reject the extreme mental or emotional disturbance mitigating factor was not supported by competent, substantial evidence and that the trial court’s sentencing order as to the rejection of this mitigator was defective. We address each argument individually. Davis first claims that the trial court’s decision to reject the statutory mitigating circumstance at issue was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. He argues that the trial court, in deciding to reject this statutory mitigating circumstance, erroneously concluded that mental illness was not the cause of, or even a major contributing factor to, the murder. In addressing claims that a trial court erroneously rejected a statutory mitigating circumstance, this Court has stated that “[w]here it is clear that the trial court has considered all evidence presented in support of a mitigating factor, the court’s decision as to whether that circumstance is established will be reviewed only for abuse of discretion.” Ault v. State, 53 So. 3d 175, 186-87 (Fla. 2010). “The trial court’s findings will be upheld where there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support each finding.” Id. at 187. During both the guilt- and penalty-phase proceedings, multiple psychologists testified as expert witnesses regarding Davis’s mental state at the time of the murder. While each psychologist testified that Davis suffered from some form of - 20 - mental illness, the psychologists’ opinions as to the effect of that mental illness on Davis’s mental state at the time of the murder varied widely. Dr. Golden, who testified for the defense during the guilt-phase proceedings, diagnosed Davis with bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder and also found Davis exhibited characteristics of antisocial personality disorder. Dr. Golden concluded that Davis did not think his actions were wrong at the time of the murder because he was suffering from command hallucinations, which forced him to commit the murder in order to protect his former girlfriend Jody and her son from harm. Despite these diagnoses, however, Dr. Golden noted that Davis had an IQ score of 127 and was an extremely intelligent individual. Dr. Tressler, who testified for the State during the guilt-phase proceedings, also diagnosed Davis with bipolar disorder, but differed from Dr. Golden in that he actually diagnosed Davis with antisocial personality disorder. With respect to Davis’s reported command hallucinations, Dr. Tressler stated that he found it difficult to conclude that the hallucinations were valid and that such hallucinations were not symptomatic of any mental health problem that Davis was known to have. Additionally, Dr. Tressler stated that objective testing indicated that Davis was exaggerating the symptoms he allegedly experienced as a result of his mental illness. Dr. Tressler explained that based on listening to Davis’s initial recorded conversation with Investigator Hemmert, Davis “certainly was not in a state of - 21 - emotional distress at that time” and there was no evidence that Davis was suffering from active psychosis. Dr. Riebsame, who testified for the State during the guilt- and penalty-phase proceedings, diagnosed Davis with bipolar disorder and a personality disorder with borderline and antisocial characteristics. However, Dr. Riebsame testified that Davis’s hallucinations were contrived and that it was his opinion, based on objective testing, that Davis was exaggerating his symptoms of mental illness and reporting symptoms of mental illness when reporting such symptoms would be to his benefit. During the penalty-phase proceedings, Dr. Riebsame also testified that, within the bounds of reasonable psychological probability, Davis was not under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance when he committed the murder. Dr. Riebsame stressed that in Davis’s initial recorded conversation with Investigator Hemmert on the night of the murder, Davis showed no symptoms of extreme mental disturbance. Finally, Dr. Danzinger, who testified for the defense during the penaltyphase proceedings, diagnosed Davis with bipolar disorder and a personality disorder with borderline and antisocial characteristics. Notably, Dr. Danzinger also testified that he did not find Davis’s reported hallucinations plausible and that, as a result, he did not think Davis met Florida’s insanity standard. Ultimately, however, Dr. Danzinger testified that Davis was under the influence of an extreme - 22 - mental or emotional disturbance when he committed the murder and was in a very agitated and depressed state as a result of being rejected by Jody. In reaching this conclusion, Dr. Danzinger relied heavily on Davis’s history of mental illness and the fact that Davis had not taken any medication during the thirteen months leading up to the murder. A review of the testifying psychologists’ opinions as to Davis’s mental state at the time of the murder thus reveals that those opinions varied greatly. At one extreme, defense expert Dr. Golden testified that Davis satisfied Florida’s insanity standard at the time of the murder, while at the other extreme, State expert Dr. Riebsame testified that Davis was not under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance when he committed the murder. In its written sentencing order, the trial court analyzed the expert testimony elicited during trial, expressly noting that the experts who testified “were all very thorough in their evaluations”; that three of the four expert witnesses “did not accept the Defendant’s statements to law enforcement that a hallucination . . . caused him to commit the crimes”; and that one expert, Dr. Danzinger, “felt the Defendant fabricated this hallucination.” The trial court also noted Dr. Danzinger’s testimony that Davis was under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance when he committed the murder. - 23 - Ultimately, however, the trial court concluded that, based upon the trial testimony, Davis “suffer[ed] from a mental illness,” but that his mental illness was only a “contributing factor[] to his choices, and not the cause of his actions or that at the time of the murder his mental illness was so extreme that it was a major factor in an inability to control his behavior.” In reaching this conclusion, the trial court stated that Davis’s statements “to the detective [on] the night of the murder are the most telling of his calculating mind as well as his callous behaviors.” We conclude that this case is analogous to Merck v. State, 975 So. 2d 1054, 1065 (Fla. 2007), in which this Court upheld a trial court’s finding that the defendant was not under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance when he committed the murder. In Merck, the defense’s expert witness and the State’s expert witness disagreed as to whether the defendant committed the murder while under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance, and the trial court rejected the mitigator, giving greater weight to the State expert’s testimony. Id. This Court upheld the trial court’s rejection of the mitigating circumstance, concluding that “[w]e defer to the trial judge’s finding that this mitigating factor was not established because his finding was supported by [the State witness’s] testimony.” Id. Just as in Merck, the trial court’s rejection of the extreme mental or emotional disturbance mitigator in this case is supported by expert witness - 24 - testimony from Dr. Riebsame, which the trial court specifically cited in considering the evidence presented with regard to this mitigator. Dr. Riebsame testified during the penalty phase that Davis was not under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance when he committed the murder, basing his opinion largely upon Davis’s recorded statement to Investigator Hemmert immediately after the victim’s body was discovered. The trial court explicitly noted that it relied upon this recorded statement in finding that the statutory mitigator did not apply. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court’s rejection of this statutory mitigator was supported by competent, substantial evidence. Davis also claims that the trial court’s sentencing order with respect to the court’s rejection of this statutory mitigating circumstance was defective. Specifically, Davis argues that the trial court’s sentencing order does not display the “reasoned judgment” that is required for this Court to sustain a trial court’s rejection of statutory mitigation because the court merely “summarized the expert testimony generally, then leapt to the conclusion that mental illness not only was not the cause of the charged offenses, but was not even a major factor contributing to them.” “For this Court to sustain a trial court’s final decision in its sentencing order, competent, substantial evidence of record must support the trial court’s weighing process [of aggravation against mitigation].” Oyola v. State, 99 So. 3d 431, 446 - 25 - (Fla. 2012) (citing Campbell v. State, 571 So. 2d 415, 419-20 (Fla. 1990)). “Moreover, the trial court’s sentencing order must reflect ‘reasoned judgment’ by the trial court as it weighed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” Id. (quoting Lucas v. State, 568 So. 2d 18, 20 (Fla. 1990)). In support of his claim that the trial court’s written sentencing order is defective, Davis relies on Oyola, 99 So. 3d at 447, in which this Court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed, in its sentencing order, to “evaluate, in a well-reasoned fashion, how the evidence presented failed to support the mitigating evidence presented by [the defendant].” Id. This Court stated that the trial court’s sentencing order “merely gave a brief summary of its findings with regard to the mitigators, and did not expressly and specifically articulate why the evidence presented failed to support the proposed statutory mitigators.” Id. In contrast to Oyola, the trial court in this case provided a lengthy explanation as to why it rejected the statutory extreme mental or emotional disturbance mitigating circumstance. The trial court, over a span of three pages of its sentencing order, analyzed the testimony that was pertinent to the alleged mitigating circumstance and explicitly stated its reasons for not finding the statutory mitigating circumstance. We conclude that this analysis satisfies the requirements this Court has articulated for a trial court’s sentencing order and that Davis’s claim is therefore without merit. - 26 - B. Weighing of Nonstatutory Aggravators Davis next asserts that the trial court impermissibly relied on nonstatutory aggravating factors. In support of this claim, Davis points to the portion of the trial court’s sentencing order that addresses nonstatutory mitigation. The statements that Davis contends are impermissible are that Davis “was instructed . . . to continue his medications . . . but he chose not to,” and that Davis “clearly let the jury and the Court know that in the future he would not be [amenable] to life in prison” but instead “will find a way to kill himself or harm another.” In support of this claim, Davis relies on Miller v. State, 373 So. 2d 882, 886 (Fla. 1979), in which this Court reversed a death sentence because the trial court considered an additional nonstatutory aggravating circumstance when weighing the appropriateness of the death penalty. In its sentencing order, the trial court in that case stated that “the testimony overwhelmingly establishes that the mental sickness or illness that [the defendant] suffers from is such that he will never recover from it, it will only be repressed by the use of drugs.” Id. at 885. This Court held that it was “clear from the trial judge’s sentencing order that he considered as an aggravating factor the defendant’s allegedly incurable and dangerous mental illness,” and that the “use of this nonstatutory aggravating factor as a controlling circumstance tipping the balance in favor of the death penalty was improper.” Id. - 27 - In contrast to Miller, we conclude that this case is more like Perez v. State, 919 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 2005). In Perez, the trial court assigned little weight to a nonstatutory mitigating circumstance because it found that the defendant’s bad upbringing, which formed the basis of the mitigating circumstance, actually “contributed to a combination of antisocial personality features and borderline personality features.” Perez, 919 So. 2d at 375. On appeal to this Court, the defendant claimed that Miller prohibited a trial court from utilizing nonstatutory aggravating circumstances as “anti-mitigation.” Id. However, the Court concluded that the trial court’s decision was proper because the “trial court’s statement . . . was clearly made in its assessment of the weight to be accorded a nonstatutory mitigating circumstance,” and the trial court did in fact consider the defendant’s mental condition in its analysis of statutory mitigation. Id. at 376. In this case, the trial court’s statements that Davis “was instructed . . . to continue his medications . . . but he chose not to,” and that Davis “clearly let the jury and the Court know that in the future he would not be [amenable] to life in prison” but instead “will find a way to kill himself or harm another” were clearly made with regard to its assessment of the weight to be accorded a nonstatutory mitigating circumstance. Here, just as in Perez, the trial court discussed aspects of Davis’s mental health history in determining what weight to grant nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not - 28 - improperly rely on nonstatutory aggravating circumstances, and we deny relief on this claim. C. CCP Aggravating Circumstance In this claim, Davis alleges that the trial court erred in finding the CCP aggravating circumstance. While Davis admits that the murder was “cold” and was committed without moral or legal justification, he contends that the trial court erred in finding that the murder was “calculated” or was the result of heightened premeditation. “The standard of review this Court applies to a claim regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to support an aggravating circumstance is that of competent, substantial evidence.” Guardado v. State, 965 So. 2d 108, 115 (Fla. 2007). To establish the CCP aggravator, the evidence must show: (1) “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)”; (2) “the defendant had a careful plan or prearranged design to commit murder before the fatal incident (calculated)”; (3) “the defendant exhibited heightened premeditation (premeditated)”; (4) “the defendant had no pretense of moral or legal justification.” Williams v. State, 37 So. 3d 187, 195 (Fla. 2010) (quoting Franklin v. State, 965 So. 2d 79, 98 (Fla. 2007)). “ ‘CCP involves a much higher degree of premeditation’ than is required to prove first-degree murder.” Id. at 195 (quoting Deparvine v. State, 995 So. 2d 351, 381-82 (Fla. 2008)). “Premeditation can be - 29 - established by examining the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused.” Id. (quoting Franklin, 965 So. 2d at 98). “The CCP aggravator can ‘be indicated by circumstances showing such facts as advance procurement of a weapon, lack of resistance or provocation, and the appearance of a killing carried out as a matter of course.’ ” Franklin, 965 So. 2d at 98 (quoting Swafford v. State, 533 So. 2d 270, 277 (Fla. 1988)). “Further, ‘the evidence must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant planned or prearranged to commit murder before the crime began.’ ” Williams, 37 So. 3d at 195 (quoting Thompson v. State, 565 So. 2d 1311, 1318 (Fla. 1990)). After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that there is competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding of CCP in this case. First, there is competent, substantial evidence that the murder was committed in a “calculated” manner. By Davis’s own account, he went to the dealership on the morning of the murder because, based on his prior visits to the dealership, Davis knew that the victim “was there early in the morning” and that “she was usually by herself.” On the morning of the murder, Davis parked his car at the Post Time Lounge, a nearby business, instead of parking at the car dealership. He brought a steak knife with him to the dealership, which the trial court found to be particularly insightful as to Davis’s prearranged plan, stating that the knife “was a kitchen utensil normally used for eating a meal . . . [and] would not have been one - 30 - someone ordinarily could carry unsheathed about their person for any routine purpose or one to be forgotten in a pants or shirt pocket.” Moreover, after abducting the victim at knife point, Davis drove the victim’s car back to the Post Time Lounge parking lot where he parked the victim’s car next to his own vehicle. Davis then removed the victim from her car and had her lie down in the backseat of his own car. Davis drove the victim back to his home, where he sexually battered and then strangled her in a matter of about twenty-five minutes. This series of events from the time of Davis going to the dealership to the time of the murder, which is based on Davis’s own statements to Investigator Hemmert, shows that Davis had a careful plan to commit the murder. We conclude that there is also competent, substantial evidence to support the heightened premeditation prong of the CCP aggravator. This Court has previously held that the “[h]eightened premeditation necessary for CCP is established where . . . the defendant had ample opportunity to release the victim but instead, after substantial reflection, ‘acted out the plan [he] had conceived during the extended period in which [the] events occurred.’ ” Hudson v. State, 992 So. 2d 96, 116 (Fla. 2008) (quoting Alston v. State, 723 So. 2d 148, 162 (Fla. 1998)). In Hudson, the defendant was at the victim’s apartment with the victim for at least forty-five minutes before the murder occurred. Id. This Court held that this amount of time gave the defendant ample opportunity to reflect upon his actions - 31 - and noted that this “evidence alone would be sufficient to establish heightened premeditation.” Id. Just as in Hudson, the record in this case illustrates that Davis had “ample opportunity to release the victim,” id., but instead committed the murder after an extended period of time. As the trial court explained, Davis had “sufficient time from the abduction, through the long drive to his home, through the sexual battery and after to reflect upon the effect of the victim’s death.” Based on this series of events, we conclude that the record contains competent, substantial evidence that Davis had formed the necessary heightened premeditation to support the trial court’s finding of CCP. Accordingly, we deny relief on this claim. D. Avoid Arrest Aggravating Circumstance In his final challenge to the trial court’s findings as to aggravation and mitigation, Davis claims that the avoid arrest aggravating circumstance is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. The avoid arrest aggravator is applicable when “[t]he capital felony was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or effecting an escape from custody.” § 921.141(5)(e), Fla. Stat. (2011). “The avoid arrest aggravator focuses on the motivation for the crimes.” Jennings v. State, 718 So. 2d 144, 151 (Fla. 1998). “To establish the avoid arrest aggravating factor where the victim is not a law enforcement officer, the State must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the - 32 - sole or dominant motive for the murder was the elimination of a witness.” Connor v. State, 803 So. 2d 598, 610 (Fla. 2001) (citing Alston, 723 So. 2d at 160). “In such cases, proof of the intent to avoid arrest or detection must be very strong.” Hernandez v. State, 4 So. 3d 642, 667 (Fla. 2009) (citing Riley v. State, 366 So. 2d 19, 22 (Fla. 1978)). This Court has explained that “[m]ere speculation on the part of the [S]tate that witness elimination was the dominant motive behind a murder cannot support the avoid arrest aggravator.” Id. (quoting Consalvo v. State, 697 So. 2d 805, 819 (Fla. 1996)). In addressing this claim, we must determine whether there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding of this aggravating circumstance. Guardado, 965 So. 2d at 115. In this case, Davis made no incriminating statements indicating that he killed the victim in order to avoid arrest. In fact, when Davis was specifically asked by Investigator Hemmert whether he committed the murder to ensure that the victim could not later identify him, Davis stated that this was not the reason for the murder. To support its finding of the avoid arrest aggravator, the trial court relied on several pieces of circumstantial evidence, including the fact that Davis was on probation at the time of the murder and that the victim could identify Davis from his prior visits to the auto dealership. The trial court also noted that the victim did not resist at any point during the abduction or sexual battery. Additionally, the - 33 - trial court explained that Davis’s actions after the murder indicated that he was attempting to avoid arrest, such as his decision to wrap the victim’s body in a blanket and cover her head in a plastic bag before putting her in his car, drive around with the body until sundown, and then return to the Post Time Lounge to transfer the body to the victim’s car. Conversely, Davis contends that his actions do not show that the murder was motivated by an attempt to avoid arrest. In particular, Davis emphasizes that he left the knife he used to abduct the victim and an incriminating bed sheet in his room, and that he drove directly in front of the dealership in order to get to the Post Time Lounge, which are factors that weigh against finding the avoid arrest aggravator. In evaluating the avoid arrest aggravator in the past, this Court has stated that it may be “significant that the victims knew and could identify their killer,” but has also noted that “this fact alone is insufficient to prove the avoid arrest aggravator.” Farina v. State, 801 So. 2d 44, 54 (Fla. 2001). While it is clear that the victim in this case knew and could identify Davis, these facts standing alone are not enough to uphold a trial court’s finding of the avoid arrest aggravator in the absence of additional evidence supporting the trial court’s finding, which we conclude is not present here. - 34 - This Court’s decision in Doyle v. State, 460 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1984), is instructive. In Doyle, the defendant, who knew the victim prior to the murder, sexually assaulted and then choked the victim to death. Id. at 355. The trial court found the avoid arrest aggravator based upon the fact that the “victim knew her attacker and would report the rape.” Id. at 358. Additionally, the trial court relied on the fact that in “a prior case, Doyle had been given a suspended five-year sentence which would be imposed if he were convicted of any crime.” Id. Based upon these factors, the trial court “inferred that the murder was committed to prevent the report of the rape.” Id. This Court reversed the trial court’s finding of the avoid arrest aggravator, stating: It is a tragic reality that the murder of a rape victim is all too frequently the culmination of the same hostile-aggressive impulses which triggered the initial attack and not a reasoned act motivated primarily by the desire to avoid detection. Based on the facts in the record before this Court, we hold that the state has not proven this aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The prominent distinguishing feature between this case and Doyle is that, after committing the murder, Davis drove around with the victim’s body in his car for several hours. While the trial court interpreted this action as consistent with an intent to wait until nightfall before returning to the Post Time Lounge parking lot to “transfer the body to [the victim’s] vehicle in the dark, and make his getaway,” this interpretation is premised on assumption. - 35 - There was no direct evidence elicited during trial that supports the trial court’s interpretation of why Davis drove around for several hours after murdering the victim. The only evidence with respect to this act came from Davis himself, who told Investigator Hemmert that during the time he was driving around with the victim’s body he “[r]eally couldn’t figure out what to do.” In fact, when Investigator Hemmert asked Davis why he committed the murder, Davis responded that he “kind of tried to figure out a way to . . . die by suicide by cop,” a response that is clearly inconsistent with a desire to avoid arrest. As this Court stated in Menendez v. State, 368 So. 2d 1278, 1282 (Fla. 1979), when deciding the applicability of the avoid arrest aggravator, this Court “cannot assume [the defendant]’s motive.” Thus, without other evidence showing that Davis’s actions after the murder were undertaken to avoid arrest, it is improper to assume that Davis was waiting until nightfall in order to return the victim’s body to her car under the cover of darkness. Moreover, evidence presented at trial actually undermines the trial court’s conclusion that Davis’s actions were undertaken to avoid arrest. For example, when returning to the Post Time Lounge, Davis drove directly in front of Super Sport Auto, the very place where he abducted the victim earlier that day. This conduct is inconsistent with the trial court’s conclusion that Davis was acting out a plan to return the victim to her car and avoid arrest. - 36 - While the trial court relied on Preston v. State, 607 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1992), to support its finding of the avoid arrest aggravator, that case is readily distinguishable. In Preston, in which this Court upheld the trial court’s finding of the avoid arrest aggravator, the defendant abducted a convenience store clerk after a robbery, drove her to an isolated area, and then murdered her. Preston, 607 So. 2d at 409. A finding of avoid arrest in Preston, however, is completely consistent with this Court’s precedent, which establishes that the avoid arrest aggravator applies in cases “where a robbery victim was abducted from the scene of the crime and transported to a different location where he or she was then killed.” Id.; see also Cave v. State, 476 So. 2d 180, 188 (Fla. 1985) (upholding avoid arrest aggravator where, after a robbery, the victim was kidnapped from the store, taken thirteen miles to a rural area, and killed). However, the factual circumstances in Preston are not analogous to this case. While the facts of Preston clearly show that the murder was committed as a separate act after the robbery was completed to avoid arrest for a predicate crime, the facts in this case do not support such a clear inference—nor was there a predicate crime for which Davis was attempting to avoid arrest prior to his abduction of the victim. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court’s reliance on Preston in finding the avoid arrest aggravator was misplaced. - 37 - Instead, we conclude that the circumstantial evidence in this case is insufficient to prove that witness elimination was the dominant motivation behind the murder and that the trial court therefore erred in finding this aggravator. Because we strike the avoid arrest aggravating circumstance, we must analyze whether the trial court’s finding of the avoid arrest aggravator constituted harmless error. See Hall v. State, 107 So. 3d 262, 278-79 (Fla. 2012); Reynolds v. State, 934 So. 2d 1128, 1158-59 (Fla. 2006). In making this determination, we take into account our decision that the trial court appropriately found the CCP aggravator and appropriately rejected the extreme mental or emotional disturbance statutory mitigator. We conclude that the trial court’s error in finding the avoid arrest aggravator was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because, even after the exclusion of this aggravator, the trial court assigned great weight to the remaining five aggravators, did not find any statutory mitigation, and gave varying amounts of weight to six nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. Thus, we hold that there is no reasonable possibility that the trial court’s error in finding the avoid arrest aggravator affected the ultimate sentence imposed by the trial court.