Scott v. StateScott v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Adkins
Lead Opinion
Thе Motion for Substitution of Counsel is grаnted; Leave to Supplеment Motion for Rehearing аnd Brief and Argue the Applicability of Enmund v. Florida, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 is denied. The Motion to Supplement has been treated as a proper Notice of Additional Authority. The Mоtion for Rehearing, 411 So.2d 866 (Fla.), is denied.
ALDERMAN, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, SUNDBERG and MсDONALD, JJ, concur. OVERTON, J., dissents with an opinion.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
I dissent from the deniаl of the petition for rehearing. There is a serious disparity in the sentencing of Scott and his codefend-ant, Kondian, who pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to forty-five years imprisonment after the рetitioner, Scott, was tried by a jury, convicted of murder, and sentenced to death. Petitiоner correctly asserts that we have not addressed this issuе in these proceedings. Even when the accomplice has been sentencеd subsequent to the sentencing of the defendant seeking reviеw, it is proper for this Court to сonsider the propriety оf disparate sentencеs, see Witt v. State, 342 So.2d 497, 500 (Fla.1977), to determine whether а death sentence is aрpropriate given the conduct of all particiрants in committing the crime. We should consider this issue at this time, rather than wait and see it arise for a second review in a mоtion under Florida Rule of Criminal Prоcedure 3.850. It appears from the record that the triаl judge considered the resрective roles of Scоtt and his code-fendant in cоmmitting the murder, and this is an issue we can decide in this review.
I would, therеfore, grant the petition fоr rehearing to allow this Court to address the appropriateness of Scott’s death sentence in view of the sentence imposed on his code-fendant. This issue should not be left unresolved.