holding that the death sentence was proportionate where the defendant fatally stabbed a seventy-two-year-old victim; the trial court found five aggrava-tors — prior violent felony conviction, HAC, committed while on parole, committed during a burglary, and victim was particularly vulnerable — which were weighed against six nonstatutory mitigating circumstances
How later courts described this case
- holding that the death sentence was proportionate where the defendant fatally stabbed a seventy-two-year-old victim; the trial court found five aggrava-tors — prior violent felony conviction, HAC, committed while on parole, committed during a burglary, and victim was particularly vulnerable — which were weighed against six nonstatutory mitigating circumstances
- rejecting as meritless the argument that “an indictment must allege the required factual findings in support of a death sentence” because “Florida’s capital sentencing scheme withstands constitutional scrutiny because it provides sufficient notice of the - 71 - charges against the accused”
- concluding that location of wounds and force used in stabbing constituted competent, substantial evidence supporting premeditation
- stating that this Court derived how police are to administer the rights in article I, section 9, in its Traylor decision
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CANADY, J.,
concurring in result.
I concur in the decision to affirm the convictions and sentences. I disagree, however, with any suggestion in the majority opinion that the Florida Constitution imposes requirements more exacting than those imposed by Miranda 10 and its progeny regarding the warnings that must be given to a suspect who is subjected to a custodial interrogation. I also disagree with any suggestion that the gender of the victim should play a role in determining whether a sentence of death is disproportionate.
POLSTON, J., concurs.
. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).