Beckman v. StateBeckman v. State
Jason Beckman, the defendant below, appeals his conviction and sentence for first degree premeditated murder, claiming that he is entitled to a new trial based on erroneous evidentiary rulings by the lower court and improper closing argument by the prosecutor. The defendant also argues that Florida‘s sentencing scheme for juveniles convicted of capital crimes, which comports with Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). See
The underlying facts
On April 12, 2009, the then seventeen-year-old defendant shot and killed his father with a shotgun in the bathroom of their home, while his father was taking a shower. The shotgun had two barrels, each with a safety. At the time of the shooting, one safety was on and one was off. Each chamber was loaded with live ammunition. The shotgun trigger required two to four pounds of pressure to fire. The defendant fired the shotgun once, while standing just four and half to six feet from his father, who was standing in the shower tub taking a shower.
The shotgun pellets went through the shower curtain, hitting the father in the neck and face. The pellets lacerated his tongue, fractured his jaw, broke or
Within a minute of the shooting, the defendant called out, “Oh my God, call 911” loud enough for a neighbor, Frank Alfonso, to hear. During the 911 call, the defendant told the police dispatch, “Please, come quickly, I accidentally shot my father.” He then stated that he was going hunting with his father and that he had gone into the bathroom to show his father a shotgun, which accidentally went off even though the safety was on.
Upon arriving at the scene, the police searched the home and found the defendant‘s book bag in a bedroom. In the book bag was a spiral notebook, the first page of which was labeled “The List” at the top. Underneath the title were ten names that were each preceded by a Roman numeral III, IV or V. The father‘s name was at the top of the page and was the only name with a roman numeral V next to it. Other names on the list included those of the defendant‘s teachers and classmates.
The defendant was arrested and charged by indictment with first-degree premeditated murder with a firearm that discharged and caused death, and unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense.1 The State‘s theory was that the defendant had a longstanding hatred for his father and that he
While in jail awaiting trial, the defendant shared a cell with Michael Nistal, who claimed the defendant had told Mr. Nistal about the shooting. According to Mr. Nistal, who gave a statement to the police about his jailhouse conversations, the defendant stated that he shot his father in the face with the shotgun because he hated him and that he would have used a knife had he not underestimated the circumstantial evidence in the case. Mr. Nistal also claimed that the defendant kept another list of names while he was in jail, which included the names of fellow inmates and the defendant‘s neighbors. Mr. Nistal claimed that the defendant told him that he wanted to kill the neighbors because they were potential trial witnesses.
At trial, the court permitted the State to introduce The List found in the defendant‘s book bag. The court also allowed the State to present several of the defendant‘s classmates and teachers, who testified that the defendant told them why he had created The List, and as to how certain people ended up being placed on The List. Several of these witnesses testified that the defendant told them that he hated his father and wanted him to die, even offering one witness money if he would kill the defendant‘s father. The court also permitted the State to elicit
The court excluded any evidence that the defendant suffers from Asperger‘s syndrome, finding that his condition only goes to diminished capacity, which is an impermissible defense in Florida. Nevertheless, the court did permit the defense to introduce testimony that the defendant is “weird,” and speaks “oddly,” “out of turn” and in a “monotone” voice as a means of explaining his mannerisms and demeanor.
The court excluded the content of the defendant‘s 911 call to police dispatch, finding it did not satisfy the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. The court did so upon determining that the defendant had an opportunity to reflect prior to making the call. In so holding, the court relied upon the testimony of the defendant‘s neighborhood friend, Lisa Syren. She testified that, just two weeks prior to the shooting, the defendant had both shown her the shotgun and said that he wanted to shoot his father with it and make it look like self-defense.
During closing argument, the prosecutor made a number of comments—some objected to, some not—which the defendant claims amounted to misconduct and which entitle him to a new trial. The court denied his motion for a new trial.
The jury convicted the defendant as charged of first degree premeditated murder. Because he was seventeen years and twenty-nine days old at the time of
On this appeal, the defendant claims the trial court abused its discretion by: permitting the prosecutor to introduce bad character evidence with respect to The List and the second list he kept in jail awaiting trial; precluding the defense from introducing testimony that the defendant had Asperger‘s syndrome; excluding the defendant‘s 911 call to the police as hearsay; and denying the defense motion for mistrial based on improper closing argument. The defendant also argues that the individualized hearing for juveniles set forth in section 921.1401 of the Florida Statutes violates Apprendi because the trial court, not the jury, conducts the individualized hearing and determines whether a life sentence is appropriate. We address each claim separately.
Evidence of The List
Background facts
The List contained ten names with a Roman numeral preceding each name. The father‘s name was at the top of The List and was the only name with a Roman numeral V next to it. Of the remaining nine names on The List, there were seven
At a motion in limine hearing, the State argued that an un-redacted copy of The List should be presented to the jury because it was “inextricably intertwined” evidence. See
At trial, the court was asked to clarify its earlier ruling with respect to the witnesses who would be testifying about The List. The defense objected to any witnesses testifying as to any personal incident they had with defendant that resulted with either their name being placed on The List, or the defendant telling them their name had been placed on The List. Defense counsel argued that none of the unrelated incidents were relevant as to whether the defendant intentionally killed his father. In response, the State argued that the witnesses’ testimony as to the unrelated incidents would provide an “understanding of this list” insofar as it
Consistent with the court‘s rulings, the State introduced the testimony of several of the defendant‘s former classmates and teachers at trial with respect to The List.
Analysis
The defendant argues that, by allowing witnesses to testify as to why people were on The List, the trial court erroneously admitted Williams2 rule evidence, i.e., collateral evidence of uncharged bad acts introduced solely to prove the defendant‘s bad character or propensity to commit crime, in violation of
Evidence is inextricably intertwined if the evidence is necessary to (1) “adequately describe the deed,“; (2) provide an intelligent account of the crime(s) charged; (3) establish the entire context out of which the charged crime(s) arose; or (4) adequately describe the events leading up to the charged crime(s).
Collateral evidence is admissible under section 90.402 if it is a “relevant and inseparable part of the act which is in issue.” Id. at 1214-15 (quoting Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 404.17 (1993 ed.)). If this standard is met, the court must then decide if the probative value of introducing such evidence is “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Id. at 1212 (quoting
Having reviewed the trial transcripts, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the testimony of the defendant‘s former teachers and classmates was inextricably intertwined with the charged crime and that the probative value of such evidence was not outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See Dorsett, 944 So. 2d at 1215 (“Given these facts, without being able to explain the entire context and circumstances leading to the charged transaction, the jury would not have been presented with a true understanding regarding the officer‘s focus and attention on the defendant.“); State v. Rambaran, 975 So. 2d 519, 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (permitting the State to introduce evidence of collateral crimes by the defendant against the two victims on two prior occasions because the prior events “provide an intelligent account of the events that led to the crimes being tried,” where the defendant was charged with two counts of attempted murder).
The State is correct that providing testimony only as to the father‘s name appearing on The List and the meaning of the Roman numeral designation next to his name would not have provided the full context of when and how the defendant developed his hatred and premeditated intent to kill his father. Without more, the jury would have had little insight into the defendant‘s thought process or intent when creating The List—such as, what types of acts merited a person being designated a category I or II (just mad at person), and categories III (deserved punishment), IV (deserved severe, permanent punishment) and V (deserved death), and what moved a person up and/or down The List, as well as why only the father merited a category V.3
Evidence of the jail list
Background facts
At trial, when the State asked Mr. Nistal about the list that the defendant kept while in jail, Mr. Nistal testified that the people on the list were cellmates and the defendant‘s aunt. The State then asked Mr. Nistal if he and the defendant had discussed the neighbors that might testify against the defendant at trial. Mr. Nistal answered yes to this, and also to the State‘s question whether the defendant told him that he wanted to kill the neighbors.
Analysis
As with The List, the defendant argues that Michael Nistal‘s testimony as to the existence of a second list was impermissible bad character evidence. We disagree.
Collateral crime evidence is admissible as relevant under
Here, the State sought to establish through Mr. Nistal that the defendant had created another list while in jail, that the defendant‘s neighbors were on the list, and that the defendant wanted to kill the neighbors because they would testify against him at trial. As the State clearly had a valid legal basis—consciousness of guilt—for seeking to introduce this testimony, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling it was admissible. Though the State failed to ask Mr. Nistal at trial if the neighbors were on this second list, which was part of his pre-trial statement to the police, we do not find this oversight amounts to reversible error in this case.
Evidence the defendant has Apserberg‘s syndrome
Background facts
Prior to trial, the State moved in limine to exclude any evidence that the defendant “may or does have autism and or Asperger‘s syndrome as this had no relevance to the crimes charged and would solely imply that there is a defense of
At the conclusion of the pre-trial competency hearing, the subject of the court‘s rulings on the State‘s motions in limine as to Asperger‘s syndrome was raised again. Therein, defense counsel erroneously assumed that the State would be allowed to introduce testimony that the defendant is “loud,” “weird,” “odd,” “bothersome” and speaks “differently.” Therefore, the defense wanted to call an expert to say that the defendant suffers from Asperger‘s syndrome because it was “important for the Jurors to know the reason behind why he made those statements and in the manner in which they were made and how they were made.” The defense also wanted the jury to know that the defendant has Asperger‘s syndrome as a way of explaining his physical demeanor in the courtroom.
Of course, it was the State that had moved in limine to exclude any testimony that the defendant is “different,” “unusual,” “weird” or a “little off” and
At trial, defense counsel moved for a mistrial after opening statement for not being able to introduce evidence that the defendant has Asperger‘s syndrome. The court denied the motion. At the close of all the evidence, defense counsel again moved for a mistrial on this basis. The court denied the motion.
Analysis
The defendant argues that he should have been permitted to introduce evidence that the defendant has Asperger‘s syndrome at trial. We review the trial court‘s exclusion of this evidence for abuse of discretion. See Knight, 15 So. 3d at 938.
The State moved to exclude any mention that the defendant has Asperger‘s syndrome and that he is “different,” “unusual,” “weird” or a “little off.” At defense counsel‘s insistence, the court ultimately permitted defense counsel to introduce evidence that the defendant is “weird,” “speaks oddly“, “speaks in a monotone,” and “speaks out of turn” so that the jury could have some context for
Given defense counsel‘s narrow rationale for seeking admittance of this limited testimony in the lower proceedings, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the defense could not also bring in a doctor to testify that the defendant has Asperger‘s syndrome. It was enough for the jury to know that the defendant generally acted differently from most people. See Slicker v. State, 941 So. 2d 1191, 1994 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (permitting the defendant to introduce state-of-mind evidence through lay witnesses that the defendant was under physical and mental fatigue at the time of the charged crime, noting that the defense “did not attempt to introduce expert testimony that she suffered a mental abnormality“). Having a defense expert assign a medical condition to the defendant‘s conduct would not have assisted the jury any further on the narrow point for which this evidence was being introduced; any marginal relevance would have been outweighed by confusion of the issues and/or misled the jury. See
On appeal, the defendant makes an additional argument that was never made below: that the evidence the defendant has Asperger‘s syndrome demonstrates that he did not form the premeditated intent to kill his father in this case. Specifically, that the defendant merely compiled The List as a coping mechanism for his social
In any event, even if this issue were preserved, this claim has no merit. The defendant tries to draw a distinction between using evidence of Asperger‘s syndrome to show he could not form the premeditated intent to kill—which the defendant concedes is clearly inadmissible—and the use of such evidence to refute the State‘s theory that he had such intent. This is a distinction without a difference as the Florida Supreme Court has found that such evidence is inadmissible for either reason.
In Chestnut, the Florida Supreme Court answered “no” to the following certified question of great public importance:
Is evidence of an abnormal mental condition not constituting legal insanity admissible for the purpose of proving either that the
defendant could not or did not entertain the specific intent or state of mind essential to proof of the offense, in order to determine whether the crime charged, or a lesser degree thereof, was in fact committed?
538 So. 2d at 820 (emphasis added). The certified question itself contemplates the position argued by the defendant on this appeal—using evidence of Asperger‘s syndrome to prove that the defendant did not have premeditated intent.
Likewise, in setting out the issue before it in Chestnut, the Florida Supreme Court cited authority that explained that labels like “diminished capacity” are “shorthand for the proposition that expert evidence of mental abnormalities is admissible on the question of whether the defendant in fact possessed a particular mental state which is an element of the charged offense.” Id. at 822-23 (quoting Muench v. Israel, 715 F. 2d 1124, 1142-43 (7th Cir. 1983)). “When a court rejects the doctrine of diminished capacity, it is saying that the psychiatric evidence is inadmissible on the mens rea issue.” Id. at 823. Upon analyzing the broad question before it, and answering it in the negative, or supreme court concluded that unless the alleged mental deficiency meets the definition of insanity, “[p]ersons with less serious mental deficiencies should be held accountable for their crimes just as everyone else.” Id. at 825; see also Nelson v. State, 43 So. 3d 20, 30 (Fla. 2010) (finding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call a doctor to “establish that Nelson lacked mens rea” where Nelson suffered from
Thus, Chestnut clearly contemplated not only circumstances where the defense sought to argue that the defendant could not form the intent to commit a crime because of a mental infirmity, but also where, as here, the defense sought to argue that the defendant‘s mental infirmity was evidence that he had not formed the intent to commit the crime. While the defendant is correct that the Florida Supreme Court did not apply Chestnut where the defendant allegedly had an epileptic seizure during the commission of the crime, that case did not concern a mental deficiency. See Bunney v. State, 603 So. 2d 1270, 1273 n.1 (Fla. 1992) (noting that conditions like epilepsy, infancy and senility are “commonly understood conditions that are beyond one‘s control,” but that, even then, such evidence would not be admissible to the extent the defense sought to introduce evidence “relating to a general mental impairment“).
And, while the First District Court of Appeal may have permitted a defendant to present expert testimony that the defendant‘s “calm” demeanor immediately following a shooting death suggested that the defendant was in “shock” so as to rebut the State‘s argument that his calm demeanor was “indicative of his cold-blooded nature,” that case also did not involve a mental deficiency of any kind. See Dorbad v. State, 12 So. 3d 255, 258-59 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).
For the foregoing reasons, we find that Chestnut precludes the introduction of evidence that the defendant has Asperger‘s syndrome for the purpose of proving that the defendant did not have premeditated intent to kill.
Evidence of the 911 call
Background facts
Approximately one minute after shooting his father, the defendant called 911 and told police dispatch, “Please, come quickly, I accidentally shot my father.” The defendant said on the call that he was going hunting with his father and that he had gone into the bathroom to show his father a shotgun, which accidentally went off even though the safety was on. The State does not dispute either the timing of the 911 call, or that the defendant sounded hysterical on the 911 recording.
Frank Alfonso, a neighbor, was outside washing his car when he heard a loud boom that sounded like a gunshot come from inside the defendant‘s house. Seconds after hearing the noise, Mr. Alfonso heard a voice inside the defendant‘s home call out, “Oh, my God, call 911.” Mr. Alfonso then heard the same voice, still inside the home, speaking to the 911 operator.
The State moved in limine to exclude “[a]ny and all mention of self-serving statements of the defendant,” including “the defendant‘s statements to the 911
At trial, the court agreed to listen to the 911 call and, after doing so, again ruled that the tape was inadmissible hearsay because of the evidence the call was contrived.
Analysis
The defendant argues that his 911 call to the police satisfies the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. See
The “excited utterance” exception to the hearsay rule requires that the out-of-court statement relate to “a startling event . . . made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event.”
As to the second prong, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that if “the time interval between the [startling] event and the statement is long enough to permit reflective thought, the statement will be excluded in the absence of some proof that the declarant did not in fact engage in a reflective thought process.” State v. Jano, 524 So. 2d 660, 662 (Fla. 1988) (quoting McCormick on Evidence, § 297 (3d ed.)); see also Hutchinson v. State, 882 So. 2d 943, 952 (Fla. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Deparvine v. State, 995 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2008) (“There is no evidence in the record to show what occurred between the fight with Hutchinson [(the startling event)] and [Renee‘s] phone call to Pruitt. Absent some evidence that Renee did not engage in reflective thought, the statement to Pruitt cannot be admitted as an excited utterance.“); Rogers v. State, 660 So. 2d 237, 240 (Fla. 1995) (permitting a witness to testify to statements the victim made eight to ten minutes after calling the police because “[a]lthough there conceivably was time for [the victim] to engage in reflective thought, the record indicates that [the victim] did not engage in any reflection“). Citing to these cases, the defendant claims that the court can look only to the time period between the startling event and the out-of-court statement when determining whether the statement should be excluded. We disagree.
In examining the comparable federal rules governing hearsay exceptions for spontaneous statements—which include excited utterances—one popular treatise explains that “since spontaneity is the principal, and often the only, guarantee of trustworthiness for the exceptions . . ., its absence should result in exclusion of the
It has been broadly stated that the test of admissibility of statements as excited utterances is their spontaneity. “Spontaneity” refers to the state of mind of the person making the statement. . . . In determining whether the declaration was spontaneous, a court may consider such elements as the lapse of time between the main act and the declaration, the opportunity or likelihood of fabrication, the inducement to fabricate, the declarant‘s actual excitement, the place of the declaration, the presence there of visible results of the act or occurrence to which the utterance relates, whether the utterance was made in response to a question, whether the declaration was in narrative form, and whether the declaration was against interest or self-serving.
31A C.J.S. Evidence § 493 (2017) (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added); see also 2 McCormick on Evidence, § 272 (7th ed.) (“The rationale for the [excited utterance] exception lies in the special reliability that is furnished when excitement suspends the declarant‘s power of reflection and fabrication.“).
Here, the motion in limine hearing transcripts reflect that the trial court was concerned that the defendant‘s statements to 911 dispatch were not at all “spontaneous” given the defendant‘s stated motivation to stage the shooting death of his father with a shotgun that he showed his friend, Ms. Syren, which had occurred just two weeks before the defendant actually shot his father with the same
In essence, the court below excluded the 911 call because the defendant could not satisfy his burden of demonstrating that he was under any stress or excitement at the time he called 911 and gave his self-serving statement. “The mere fact that statements are self-serving is not, in and of itself, a sufficient evidentiary basis for their exclusion from evidence.” Stiles v. State, 672 So. 2d 850, 851-52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (quoting Alexander v. State, 627 So. 2d 35, 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)). Nevertheless, the self-serving nature of the statement is still a factor that can be considered when determining whether the statement was fabricated. See Sunn v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 556 So. 2d 1156, 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (noting that one of the factors to be analyzed in determining whether a statement qualifies as an excited utterance includes “whether the statement is self-serving“); 2 McCormick on Evidence, § 272 (7th ed.) (“Although not grounds for
To this end, we find persuasive two federal cases that have touched upon this issue, albeit in dicta. See United States v. Moore, 791 F. 2d 566, 571 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Knife, 592 F. 2d 472 (8th Cir. 1979). In Knife, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals opined that where there was evidence that the declarant had planned the shooting of the victim at a particular time, which then took place, that “it would be difficult to believe that the preplanned shooting . . . was an event so startling or unexpected as to suspend the defendant declarant‘s powers of reflection.” 592 F. 2d at 481, n.10. In Moore, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals noted that “[t]he statement in Knife assumes that the timing, location and circumstances of the [startling] event . . .were within the declarant‘s control.” 791 F. 2d at 571. But, the Seventh Circuit declined to apply it because the declarant in Moore did not have the requisite control over the event in question. Id. Here, the defendant clearly had the requisite control over the time, location and circumstances of the shooting.
For these reasons, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the 911 call as hearsay. Moreover, because of this, we find no
Closing arguments
Background facts
During closing argument, the prosecutor made fifteen comments that are challenged on appeal. The defendant categorizes these comments as either misleading, improper comment on the defendant‘s right to remain silent, or denigration of the defense. The defense objected to (and sought a mistrial for) only four comments; the remaining eleven complained-of comments received no objection.
Analysis
“Ordinarily, to preserve a claim based on improper comment, counsel has the obligation to object and request a mistrial. If counsel fails to object or if, after having objected, fails to move for a mistrial, his silence will be considered an implied waiver.” Nixon v. State, 572 So. 2d 1336, 1340 (Fla. 1990). For preserved error, a trial court‘s ruling on a motion for mistrial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Jordan v. State, 176 So. 3d 920, 927 (Fla. 2015). Where the defense fails to preserve the error, this court applies a fundamental error review. Id. at 929. Here, the State rightly notes that eleven of the fifteen comments were not objected to and are therefore subject to fundamental error analysis.
The second category of preserved error are the three comments purportedly directed at the defendant‘s right to remain silent. Such comments are reversible error where “the only person who could have testified at trial” as to what took place was the defendant. Dean v. State, 690 So. 2d 720, 724 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Marshall v. State, 473 So. 2d 688, 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), quashed on other grounds by State v. Marshall, 476 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1985) (“Since only two people witnessed the events in question, and one of those chose not to testify, we cannot accept the state‘s argument that the prosecutor‘s remarks amounted to nothing
Unlike the cases relied upon by the defendant, the prosecutor did not explicitly or even implicitly comment on the defendant‘s failure to testify. See Dean, 690 So. 2d at 724 (“Is there any other reasonable explanation[?] If there is you haven‘t heard it in this trial.“); Marshall, 476 So. 2d at 151 (“Ladies and gentlemen, the only person you heard from in this courtroom with regard to the events of November 9, 1981, was Brenda Scavone [the victim].“); Cunningham v. State, 404 So. 2d 759, 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (“That has not been explained in this case” and “I think counsel owes you an explanation for that.“). Moreover, as the trial court found here in denying the motion for mistrial, “[the defendant] is not the only one who can testify as to what happened. There were other witnesses who came to the house and observed the bathroom. And furthermore, there were other
The other objected-to comment was made in response to this remark by defense counsel during his closing argument: “Because, look at the floor. It looks like this rug or towel or whatever it is, it‘s all rumpled up. It‘s not laying flat like it would normally be. It‘s all rumpled up inside the bathroom at a point where a person would be holding the shotgun in their hands, pointing it up, like this, and the gun goes off.” On rebuttal, the State commented, “It was about an hour and 35 minutes or so of argument about sympathy and bias and blame it on Jay Beckman to hear something about the towel on the floor, a scrunched up towel on the floor. Did somebody say anything about a towel on the floor?” We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial as to this rebuttal remark as it was merely a fair comment on the evidence, where the photographic evidence depicted a floor mat, not a towel, on the floor of the bathroom.
As to the unpreserved errors, this court looks to whether the cumulative effect of any improper closing arguments deprived the defendant of a fair trial, i.e., fundamental error. See Bell v. State, 108 So. 3d 639, 650 (Fla. 2013). “Fundamental error is that which ‘reaches down into the validity of the trial such that a guilty verdict . . . could not have been obtained without the assistance of the
The Apprendi issue
Background facts
The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, a capital felony punishable by a term of forty years to life imprisonment. See
While the defendant‘s appeal before this court was pending, on February 2, 2016, the defendant filed a
Analysis
A claim of error under Apprendi and Miller raises a pure question of law and is, therefore, subject to de novo review. See Plott v. State, 148 So. 3d 90, 93 (Fla. 2014).
In Apprendi, the United States Supreme Court held that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” 530 U.S. at 490. For purposes of Apprendi, this statutory maximum “is not the maximum sentence a judge may impose after finding additional facts, but the maximum he may impose without any additional findings.” Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303-04 (2004). Apprendi is based on the right to a jury trial under the
In Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), the United States Supreme Court held that imposing a mandatory life sentence on a juvenile without the possibility of parole violates the
On this appeal, the defendant claims Florida‘s juvenile sentencing procedure—which the Florida Legislature passed to satisfy the individual sentencing requirements for juveniles contemplated by Miller and therefore not to violate the Eighth Amendment—violates the Sixth Amendment under Apprendi and its progeny. This is because the trial court, not the jury, considers the “defendant‘s youth and attendant circumstances” in determining whether a sentence of life imprisonment “is an appropriate sentence.” See
We are, however, persuaded by the rationale in People v. Hyatt, 891 N.W. 2d 549 (Mich. App. Ct. 2016). In Hyatt, the Michigan Court of Appeals noted that, in Apprendi, the United States Supreme Court was careful to specify that “nothing . . . suggests that it is impermissible for judges to exercise discretion—taking into consideration various factors relating both to offense and offender—in imposing a judgment within the range prescribed by statute. We have often noted that judges in this country have long exercised discretion of this nature in imposing sentence within statutory limits in the individual case.” Hyatt, 891 N.W. 2d at 557 (quoting Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 481). Thus, where a sentencing judge imposes a sentence within the range prescribed by statute, “any facts found function[] as mere sentencing factors, rather than elements of an aggravated offense.” Id.
After conducting further analysis of the numerous cases that followed Apprendi, including Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) and Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (both death penalty cases), the Hyatt court concluded that Apprendi and its progeny permit “a judge acting within the range of punishment authorized by statute [to] exercise his or her discretion—and find facts and
With this backdrop, the Hyatt court found that “the instant case is not one in which the finding of a particular fact increases the maximum penalty. Nor does the case involve a statutory scheme that makes imposition of life without parole contingent on any particular finding.” Id. at 564. Rather, the individualized sentence is “required to ensure proportionality, not to aggravate the maximum penalty available under the law.” Id. In other words, “the remodeling that Miller performed on life-without-parole sentences for juveniles did not touch the ceiling—or floor, for that matter—of the available sentence for juvenile homicide offenders.” Id. at 564-65. The Hyatt court further noted that “nowhere in Miller‘s individualized sentencing mandate is the idea that Miller altered the maximum punishment available for juvenile offenders or made the imposition of any punishment contingent on fact-finding“; thus, distinguishing this type of case from the death penalty cases, where the sentencing statute at issue there impermissibly required the court to make additional findings on certain aggravating factors before imposing a death sentence. Id. at 565.
The Hyatt court then turned to Michigan‘s different, but sufficiently analogous, juvenile sentencing statute.6 See
Next, the Hyatt court noted that the subject statutory scheme actually “sets forth a framework of mitigation, rather than aggravation” as it has the effect of “mitigating the maximum penalty authorized by the jury‘s verdict rather than aggravating the penalty beyond that which was set forth by law“; thus, reserving life sentences for “the rare juvenile deserving of the harshest penalty.” Id. at 569. As the court explained, “Eighth Amendment prohibitions [in Miller] are considered to be mitigating factors that act as a bar against imposing the statutory maximum penalty, rather than as elements that enhance the maximum possible penalty, and the determination of whether those mitigating factors exist need not, under Apprendi and its progeny, be made by a jury.” Id. at 570.7
For these reasons, we find that Florida‘s juvenile sentencing procedure set forth in section 921.1401, as contemplated by Miller, does not violate the Sixth Amendment under Apprendi and its progeny.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in: (1) admitting The List under section 90.402 because it was inextricably intertwined with the charged crime; (2) admitting Mr. Nistal‘s testimony as to the jail list under section 90.402 because it showed the defendant‘s consciousness of guilt; (3) precluding the defense from introducing testimony that
Accordingly, we affirm the defendant‘s conviction and sentence for first degree murder.
Affirmed.