Edward Allen Covington v. State of Florida
228 So. 3d 49
Fla.2017Background
- In May 2008 Edward Covington, who had been living with Lisa Freiberg and her two children for several weeks, murdered Lisa and her children Zachary (age 7) and Heather Savannah (age 2), and killed the family dog; victims suffered extreme mutilation and blunt/knife trauma. Covington was found in a closet, took pills, confessed in a recorded interview, and pleaded guilty to three counts of first-degree murder, three counts of abuse of a dead body, and one count of animal cruelty.
- At trial Covington pleaded guilty and waived a jury for the penalty phase after court colloquy and competency evaluations; the trial court proceeded to a bench penalty-phase sentencing.
- Medical examiner testimony established extensive antemortem and postmortem injuries; experts for defense and prosecution disputed whether Covington’s severe mental illness or substance use produced substantial impairment.
- The trial court found multiple aggravating factors (including HAC, prior violent felony, victim under 12, and custodial/familial authority) and several statutory and numerous nonstatutory mitigators (most given little or moderate weight), and imposed death sentences for each murder.
- On appeal Covington challenged application of aggravators (particularly vulnerable and HAC), sufficiency of the sentencing order under Campbell/Trease, failure to treat parole-ineligibility as mitigating, voluntariness of guilty pleas (review required by statute), proportionality, and Hurst-related relief.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether children were "particularly vulnerable" because Covington stood in familial/custodial authority | Covington: court did not expressly find children were "particularly vulnerable," only that he was a parent-figure | State: evidence of Covington’s parental role created vulnerability; trial court applied correct law | Court: affirmed — competent, substantial evidence supports aggravator because Covington assumed parental authority and control |
| Whether HAC aggravator applies to Heather Savannah (need consciousness/awareness of impending death) | Covington: no competent evidence she was conscious when killed so HAC improper | State: severe antemortem torture/beatings and defendant’s admissions support HAC even if fatal cut was rapid; fear/pain before death suffice | Court: affirmed HAC — injuries inflicted before fatal wound and victim suffered terror/pain making HAC applicable |
| Whether sentencing order complied with Campbell/Trease (weighing & findings) | Covington: trial court failed to properly weigh or adequately explain rejection/weighting of mitigators (e.g., substantial impairment) | State: trial court expressly evaluated mitigators, assigned weights, and explained its reasoning; it may reject expert testimony | Court: affirmed — sentencing order meets Campbell requirements; court properly exercised factfinding and weighting discretion |
| Whether parole-ineligibility should have been found mitigating | Covington: trial court refused to treat life-without-parole as mitigating | State: concedes trial court erred but argues error harmless given heavy aggravation and other mitigators | Court: error in not finding parole ineligibility mitigating, but harmless beyond reasonable doubt; death sentences unaffected |
| Validity of guilty pleas (knowing, intelligent, voluntary) | (Collateral to appeal) Covington did not contest but review required | State: plea colloquy and evaluations showed Covington understood rights and consequences despite medication | Court: pleas were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered |
| Proportionality of death sentences | Covington: raised proportionality challenge | State: aggravators (HAC, prior violent felony, victims’ age/ vulnerability) outweigh mitigators | Court: affirmed — sentences proportionate to other upheld death sentences |
| Hurst v. Florida relief (jury factfinding) | Covington: Hurst entitles him to relief | State: Covington waived penalty-phase jury; no Hurst relief | Court: affirmed — waiver of jury precludes Hurst relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Guardado v. State, 965 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2007) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence supporting aggravating circumstances)
- Aguirre-Jarquin v. State, 9 So. 3d 593 (Fla. 2009) (comparison case affirming death sentences with similar mitigation and aggravation)
- Campbell v. State, 571 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1990) (procedural requirements for capital sentencing order)
- Trease v. State, 768 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 2000) (clarified that trial courts may assign no weight to a mitigating factor)
- Ford v. State, 802 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2001) (parole ineligibility as potential mitigator and harmless-error framework)
- Beasley v. State, 774 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2000) (HAC analysis: victim’s fear/emotional strain before death relevant)
- Winkles v. State, 894 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2005) (standards for reviewing knowing, voluntary capital pleas)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (U.S. 2016) (jury factfinding requirement for death penalty sentencing)