Khadafy Kareem Mullens v. State of Florida
197 So. 3d 16
| Fla. | 2016Background
- Mullens pleaded guilty to two counts of first‑degree murder (Uddin, Hayworth) and one count of attempted first‑degree murder (Barton); he waived a jury for the penalty phase and was sentenced to death on both murder counts and life for the attempted murder.
- Surveillance cameras in the convenience store recorded the robbery and shootings; DVDs and stills from that footage were admitted at the penalty phase over defense objection to authentication.
- Trial court found three aggravators for each murder (prior violent felony; committed during robbery merged with pecuniary gain; avoid‑arrest) and found two statutory mitigators (extreme mental/emotional disturbance; substantially impaired capacity) plus several nonstatutory mitigators of limited weight; weighed aggravators as greater and imposed death sentences.
- Defense challenged (1) authentication/admissibility of surveillance evidence at penalty phase, (2) sufficiency of evidence for the avoid‑arrest aggravator, (3) alleged Campbell sentencing‑order errors (failure to address/weight proposed mitigation), (4) claim under Hurst (Sixth Amendment jury‑finding), and (5) lack of a written competency order.
- The court affirmed convictions and sentences, remanded only to enter a written competency order nunc pro tunc to the oral competency finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mullens) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authentication of surveillance DVDs/photos at penalty phase | Tower was not qualified to authenticate footage; State should have called the technician or eyewitness; admission was improper | Penalty phase has relaxed evidentiary rules; Tower’s testimony + corroborating circumstantial evidence sufficed to authenticate and show relevance | Admission did not abuse discretion; relevant under §921.141(1) and authentication threshold was met |
| Avoid‑arrest aggravator (witness elimination) | Mullens acted impulsively; footage insufficient to prove sole/dominant motive to eliminate witnesses for Uddin; heightened proof required for non‑officer victims | Circumstantial evidence (shooting when victim had phone, searching and grabbing Hayworth, dragging/shooting/attempted killing of Barton, taking VCR, no masks) shows intent to eliminate witnesses | Affirmed for Hayworth and attempted murder of Barton; partially incorrect as to Uddin alone, but sufficient circumstantial conduct overall supports avoid‑arrest aggravator |
| Campbell sentencing‑order claims (failure to address/weight mitigation; refusal to treat statutory mitigation also as nonstatutory; sexual‑abuse allegations) | Court omitted/failed to address some proposed nonstatutory mitigators and improperly dismissed sexual‑abuse mitigation | Court aggregated related nonstatutory factors permissibly, explained findings and weights, and properly rejected sexual‑abuse claim for lack of competent, substantial evidence | No reversible Campbell error; any omissions harmless given great weight to three aggravators |
| Hurst / jury‑finding and waiver of jury sentencing | Hurst requires jury fact‑finding of aggravators; waiver of jury sentencing cannot cure Hurst error — request commutation to life | Mullens knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily waived jury sentencing; defendants can waive Apprendi/Ring rights; waiver remains valid despite later law changes | Hurst claim rejected; valid waiver of jury sentencing preserved judicial factfinding; no commutation to life |
| Written competency order | No written order exists; remand required | State argued waiver in plea agreement; issue not a challenge to facts and waiver did not cover competency order | Remand for written competency order nunc pro tunc to September 16, 2011 |
Key Cases Cited
- Coday v. State, 946 So.2d 988 (Fla. 2006) (review standard for authentication and trial‑court evidentiary discretion)
- Gosciminski v. State, 132 So.3d 678 (Fla. 2013) (prima facie authentication standard; credibility for factfinder)
- Wilcox v. State, 143 So.3d 359 (Fla. 2014) (standard for reviewing aggravating‑circumstance findings and harmless‑error review)
- Hernandez v. State, 4 So.3d 642 (Fla. 2009) (avoid‑arrest aggravator requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of sole or dominant motive when victims are non‑officers)
- Garron v. State, 528 So.2d 353 (Fla. 1988) (examples where avoid‑arrest aggravator was stricken where motive unclear or reactionary)
- Buzia v. State, 926 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 2006) (circumstantial evidence supporting avoid‑arrest aggravator: gloves, masks, confining victims, incriminating statements)
- Campbell v. State, 571 So.2d 415 (Fla. 1990) (sentencing‑order requirements for stating, weighing, and assigning weight to mitigators/aggravators)
- Ault v. State, 53 So.3d 175 (Fla. 2010) (trial court must consider mitigation and may err if it rejects mitigation without adequate analysis)
- Yacob v. State, 136 So.3d 539 (Fla. 2014) (botched‑robbery context where death penalty found disproportionate)
- McLean v. State, 29 So.3d 1045 (Fla. 2010) (upholding death where multiple aggravators outweighed similar mitigators)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (Sixth Amendment requirement for jury to find facts that increase maximum punishment)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (U.S. 2016) (Florida’s capital scheme invalidated under Sixth Amendment but court held waiver here precluded relief)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (rule on jury factfinding for facts increasing punishment)