Opinion ID: 2324428
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Mitigating Evidence Argument

Text: Wynn first claims that the sentencing judge erred by failing to consider the fact that he had apologized during the sentencing hearing, and to account for the victim's own involvement in instigating the altercation that ultimately led to the shooting. The sentencing judge, however, was not required to credit Wynn's apology or Wynn's version of the shooting, because the judge found that Wynn was not credible. Indeed, the sentencing judge noted that after Wynn was incarcerated, he attempted to persuade a friend to convince his two shooting victims to recant their previous statements. The judge also found it significant that Wynn tr[ied] to minimize [his] role in [the shooting] by pretending to shoot in selfdefense. Specifically, the sentencing judge found that Wynn's version of the shootingwherein he claimed that one of the guests on the porch had instigated the shooting by pulling out a gun first, and that he had merely reactedwas a preposterous story that reek[ed] with improbabilities [and] impossibilities. The sentencing court, therefore, was not required to consider any mitigation evidence, because Wynn's mitigation account was contradicted by the evidence, and his apology was found to be insincere.