Robert Lee Hobart v. State of Florida
175 So. 3d 191
| Fla. | 2015Background
- Robert Hobart was convicted of two counts of first‑degree murder for the September 22, 2010 killings of Robert Hamm and Tracie Tolbert; jury recommended life for Hamm and death (7–5) for Tolbert; trial court imposed life and death respectively.
- Physical and forensic evidence tied Hobart to the scene: his DNA on the murder weapon grip/trigger and on Tolbert’s left arm, ballistic matches to a 9mm owned by his brother, and hair at the scene consistent with Hobart.
- Hobart met the victims to buy opioids; victims were seen earlier with pills and money, and no pills or money were recovered after the murders—supporting a robbery motive.
- Hobart told a jailhouse informant he shot Hamm after being struck with a metal pipe and then killed Tolbert because he was "all in," but later recanted; he argued at trial the killing of Hamm was reflexive/self‑defense and any taking was an afterthought.
- Penalty phase presented mental‑health evidence: defense experts diagnosed cognitive deficits, possible substance‑induced dementia/mild neurocognitive disorder and frontal‑lobe impairment; State expert disputed extreme impairment and testified Hobart could plan and strategize.
- Trial court found two statutory aggravators (prior violent felony and murder in course of robbery), rejected the statutory mitigator of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, found multiple nonstatutory mitigators, and concluded aggravators outweighed mitigators.
Issues
| Issue | Hobart's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Hamm murder (premeditation/first‑degree) | Hobart: evidence supports reflexive/self‑defense shooting by Hamm’s attack; no premeditation | State: forensic wounds (shot in back of head), presence at secluded scene, DNA/ballistics, and theft motive support premeditation or felony murder | Affirmed: competent, substantial evidence supports premeditation; alternatively valid felony‑murder theory |
| In‑course‑of‑robbery aggravator for Tolbert | Hobart: any taking was an afterthought; killings resulted from reflexive violence | State: victims had pills/money earlier; none recovered; Hobart arranged meeting knowing pills present; supports robbery motive | Affirmed: competent, substantial evidence supports robbery aggravator |
| Rejection of extreme mental or emotional disturbance mitigator | Hobart: mental health deficits and substance withdrawal produced extreme disturbance at time of murders | State: evidence of planning and forward thinking; expert testimony refuted extreme disturbance | Affirmed: trial court reasonably credited State expert and rejected statutory mitigator; record supports rejection |
| Proportionality of death sentence | Hobart: significant mental‑health mitigation renders death disproportionate | State: aggravators (prior violent felony, robbery) and comparators show penalty proportionate | Affirmed: court found Hobart comparable to upheld death sentences; mitigation not sufficiently compelling to make death disproportionate |
| Ring claim (Sixth Amendment) | Hobart: sentencing procedure violates Ring v. Arizona | State: prior violent felony aggravator (including contemporaneous murder) removes Ring concern under Florida precedent | Rejected: under existing Florida precedent Ring claim without merit given prior violent felony aggravator; acknowledged U.S. Supreme Court review of Hurst but no change yet |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. State, 25 So. 3d 518 (Fla. 2009) (standard for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal)
- Coday v. State, 946 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 2006) (standards for finding and rejecting mitigating circumstances)
- Crain v. State, 894 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2004) (general guilty verdict may be upheld on either premeditation or felony‑murder theory)
- Baker v. State, 71 So. 3d 802 (Fla. 2011) (close‑range fatal gunshot can support finding of premeditation)
- Guardado v. State, 965 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2007) (competent, substantial evidence standard for aggravator sufficiency)
- Merck v. State, 975 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2007) (trier of fact resolves expert conflicts; appellate court will not reweigh evidence)
- Besaraba v. State, 656 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 1995) (vacating death where extensive, compelling mental‑health mitigation existed)
- Lebron v. State, 982 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2008) (upholding death where similar aggravators and non‑compelling mitigation existed)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (holding Sixth Amendment requires jury finding of any fact that increases maximum penalty)
- McCoy v. State, 132 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 2013) (prior violent‑felony aggravator can obviate Ring challenge under Florida precedent)