207 So. 3d 212
Fla.2016Background
- On Dec. 24, 2009 Phillips (age 18) participated in a plan to lure occupants of apartment E-44 for a robbery; he entered armed with a .9 mm firearm. Two men (Hernandez-Perez and Antunes-Padilla) were shot and later died; a third (Salgado) was injured.
- Witnesses identified Phillips as the gunman; three shell casings and ballistic and DNA evidence (shoe DNA matching Phillips) linked him to the scene. Phillips told companions the gun fired when he dropped it.
- A jury convicted Phillips of two counts of first-degree murder (both premeditated and felony murder), armed burglary, attempted armed robbery, and conspiracy; jury recommended death 8–4 for each murder.
- At penalty, mitigation included Phillips’s age (18), borderline intellectual functioning (IQ 76), speech impediment, learning disabilities, childhood neglect, and susceptibility to peer influence; aggravators included prior violent felony (based on the other murder), commission while on felony probation, and commission during a robbery/burglary.
- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but held the death sentences disproportionate given the strong mitigation (notably age and borderline IQ), and remanded for life sentences for each murder.
Issues
| Issue | Phillips' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proportionality of death sentences | Death is disproportionate given Phillips’ age (18), borderline IQ, learning disabilities, speech impediment, and other mitigation | Aggravators (two murders, on felony probation, committed during robbery) justify death | Death sentences found disproportionate; remand to impose life imprisonment for each murder |
| Sufficiency of evidence for premeditated murder | Shootings were accidental during a struggle; gun fired when dropped | Circumstantial evidence (brought gun, only armed assailant, placed gun to victim’s head, three shots hitting victims) supports premeditation | Competent, substantial evidence supports premeditated murder convictions |
| Brady/Giglio and claims re: undisclosed/false evidence | State withheld material/exculpatory evidence or allowed false evidence | Claims not properly before Court on direct appeal | Denied without prejudice to raise in postconviction proceedings |
| Sixth Amendment / Hurst or Hall (intellectual disability) issues | Argued sentencing/jury findings violated Sixth Amendment; requested ability to show intellectual disability under Hall | State relied on jury findings, stipulations, and aggravators being established | Court did not grant relief on Hurst/Hall in result discussion; primary dispositive issue was proportionality so other penalty issues not reached; Hall-based claim not resolved on direct appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (barred death penalty for juveniles under 18; noted context for age as mitigator)
- Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014) (issues concerning intellectual disability and IQ cutoffs)
- Cooper v. State, 739 So.2d 82 (Fla. 1999) (reducing death to life where defendant was 18 with low intelligence and substantial mitigation)
- Bigham v. State, 995 So.2d 207 (Fla. 2008) (definition of premeditation and evidence supporting it)
- Kocaker v. State, 119 So.3d 1214 (Fla. 2013) (circumstantial evidence and defendant’s reasonable hypothesis of innocence)
- Spencer v. State, 615 So.2d 688 (Fla. 1993) (procedural reference for evidentiary hearings during sentencing)
- Urbin v. State, 714 So.2d 411 (Fla. 1998) (principles governing proportionality review in death penalty cases)