Court Opinion

ID: 9824146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 10:28:09.955234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:35.307751
License: Public Domain

CANADY, J.,
concurring in result.
I agree with the decision to affirm the convictions and sentences. But I disagree with the conclusion that the “trial court incorrectly applied the law regarding the avoid arrest aggravating circumstance with respect to the murder of Uddin.” Majority op. at 29. Contrary to the unela-borated assertion in Garron v. State, 528 So.2d 353, 360 (Fla.1988), when a victim is slain while attempting to make a phone call during the course of a robbery, a strong inference arises that the defendant first concluded that the phone call was likely being made to summon the police and then acted against the victim to thwart phone contact with the police and thereby to avoid arrest for the robbery. The imputation of another motive to the defendant in such circumstances can only be produced by a flight of fancy. I also disagree with remanding for a written order on competency, which is an unnecessary and useless act.
POLSTON, J., concurs.