Yacob v. State, 136 So. 3d 539

In May 2008 Michael M. Yacob (age 22) robbed a Jacksonville convenience store; during the robbery he shot and killed clerk Moussa Maida (19). Security video, DNA, and fingerprints linked Yacob to the masked robber.
Yacob was indicted for first-degree murder and armed robbery; convicted by a jury in October 2011 (murder on both premeditation and felony-murder theories).
Penalty phase: jury recommended death 10–2. Trial court found the robbery/pecuniary‑gain aggravator but merged them into a single aggravator; most mitigation was either waived by Yacob or given little to no weight.
The trial court sentenced Yacob to death for murder and life without parole for robbery.
On direct appeal the Florida Supreme Court affirmed convictions but vacated the death sentence, finding it disproportionate compared to other single‑aggravator “robbery gone bad” cases, and remanded for life without parole.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the death sentence is disproportionate compared to similar cases	Yacob: death is disproportionate because this is a single‑aggravator robbery‑gone‑bad case with limited mitigation	State: the facts are distinctive and mitigation weak, so death is proportionate	Court: Vacated death sentence — not proportionate; remanded for life without parole
Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions	(not contested by Yacob) evidence supports premeditation and felony‑murder	State: evidence (video, DNA, prints, eyewitness) proves guilt	Court: Affirmed convictions — evidence sufficient
Whether statutory aggravators were properly applied/merged	Yacob: merger should be applied; pecuniary gain duplicative of robbery aggravator	State: treated aggravators as support for death	Court: Trial court correctly merged pecuniary‑gain into robbery aggravator, yielding a single aggravator
Admissibility/consideration of mitigation evidence presented at Spencer/hearing	Yacob: trial court erred by refusing to consider some mitigation and by limiting mitigation presentation earlier	State: objections to hearsay and procedure justified evidentiary rulings	Court: Did not reach all evidentiary constitutional claims; treated some mitigation as waived or entitled to little weight; proportionality ruling dispositive

Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (statutory jury fact‑finding and capital sentencing issues)
State v. Dixon, 283 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973) (Florida court construed statutory review to include proportionality review)
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (upholding guided capital sentencing and noting comparative review as a safeguard)
Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976) (plurality opinion referencing Florida’s review safeguards)
Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37 (1984) (holding comparative proportionality review not required by Eighth Amendment)
McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (discussing appellate proportionality review as not constitutionally required where procedures adequately channel discretion)
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (death‑penalty/juvenile sentencing principles cited in proportionality context)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (death penalty limited to narrow categories; cited regarding proportionality principles)
Spencer v. State, 615 So.2d 688 (Fla. 1993) (procedures for penalty‑phase and review)
Tillman v. State, 591 So.2d 167 (Fla. 1991) (discussing state bases for proportionality review)