Opinion ID: 1650856
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Standard of Review as to Aggravating Circumstances

Text: The State has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each and every aggravating circumstance that it alleges. In this case, Williams asserts there was not competent, substantial evidence to support the findings of the trial court of aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt and that the evidence is speculative as to each of the aggravators. 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). When reviewing a trial court's finding of an aggravator, `it is not this Court's function to reweigh the evidence to determine whether the State proved each aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubtthat is the trial court's job.' Aguirre-Jarquin v. State, 9 So.3d 593, 608 (Fla.2009) (quoting Willacy v. State, 696 So.2d 693, 695 (Fla. 1997)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1505, 176 L.Ed.2d 118 (2010). Rather, it is this Court's task on appeal 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. (quoting Willacy, 696 So.2d at 695). With this in mind, we review each of the aggravating circumstances.