Opinion ID: 2487736
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Armstrong's New Penalty Phase

Text: Prior to the new penalty phase, the State filed a motion in limine seeking to preclude Armstrong from presenting testimony, evidence, or any arguments concerning Armstrong's innocence pursuant to Preston v. State, 607 So.2d 404, 411 (Fla. 1992) (explaining that such arguments would be considered improper). The trial court granted the motion, but permitted Armstrong to challenge the extent of his involvement in the robbery and homicide based on the mitigating circumstances he raised. Armstrong claimed the mitigation revealed that Coleman was the shooter and that Armstrong's involvement in the crime was minor and a result of his acting under duress. Pursuant to this Court's mandate, jury selection for the capital resentencing hearing began on April 10, 2007. On April 11, 2007, the jury panel was accepted. During jury selection, the State and defense resolved a defensive challenge for cause by agreement to excuse the challenged juror. On April 16, 2007, the panel was sworn in and the evidentiary portion of the penalty phase proceeded. At the conclusion of the new penalty phase trial, the trial court instructed the jury that its recommendation should either be for: (1) death, or (2) life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 25 years. Specifically, the trial court instructed: If you find the aggravating circumstances do not justify the death penalty, your advisory sentence should be one of life imprisonment without possibility of parole for twenty-five (25) years. The trial court further instructed the jury, If a majority of the jury determine that Lancelot Armstrong should be sentenced to death, your advisory sentence will be a majority of the jury by a vote of blank to blank, advised, recommend to the Court that it impose the death penalty upon Lancelot Armstrong. Additionally, the trial court instructed: On the other hand, if by six or more votes the jury determines that Lancelot Armstrong should not be sentenced to death, your advisory sentence would be, the jury advises and recommends to the Court by a vote of blank to blank that it impose a sentence of life imprisonment to Lancelot Armstrong without the possibility of parole for 25 years. The written instruction was consistent with the verbal instruction. The trial evidence revealed that Armstrong was originally incarcerated in 1990 and sentenced in 1991. After jury deliberations began, the jury submitted a question, asking, Will the 17 yrs he served be included in his 25 yrs sentence? The trial court relayed the jury question to counsel, stating, Will the 17 years he served be included in his sentence? After considering the arguments presented, the trial court stated: THE COURT: I'm troubled by the language in the Downs [v. State, 572 So.2d 895 (Fla.1990),] case because in the Downs case says under the facts presented we find that the trial court did not use the discretion. State argued that the Downs case created issue decision because he said, quote stands 25 more years. We haven't heard that here. They have narrowly by this case permitted the response. Ultimately, the jury was instructed as follows: The defendant will receive credit for the time served on this charge. On April 25, 2007, the jury again recommended a sentence of death by a vote of nine to three.