Carter v. State, 71714
| Decision Date | 19 October 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 71714,71714 |
| Citation | 576 So.2d 1291,14 Fla. L. Weekly 525 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 525 Antonio M. CARTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Christopher S. Quarles, Asst. Public Defender, Chief, Capital Appeals, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Paula C. Coffman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
Antonio Carter appeals his judgments, his life sentence, and sentence of death for two counts of murder in the first degree. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. After reviewing the briefs and records, we find no reversible error and therefore affirm the judgments and sentence.
On April 15, 1986, the bodies of Roy Patel and Fred Haberle were found shot to death in Patel's small grocery store in Daytona Beach, Florida. Prior to trial, four mental health experts examined Carter to determine whether he was competent to stand trial. One doctor believed Carter was not competent, while the other three found him competent to stand trial. Of those three, two doctors believed that temporary hospitalization and observation was necessary for a complete determination of competency. The trial court denied Carter's motion for temporary hospitalization and found Carter competent to stand trial.
At trial, Leland Perry testified that as he approached the store he heard what sounded like gunshots emanating from within the store. Perry entered the store where he saw Haberle lying on the floor and a man with a steel revolver standing over him. Perry positively identified this man as Antonio Carter. Carter ordered Perry to walk out of the store, and Perry complied. Carter then fled on foot. A gun with Carter's left middle fingerprint on it was recovered approximately five blocks from the store. Ballistics tests revealed that this gun was used to shoot Patel and Haberle.
With this evidence and testimony, the jury returned verdicts of guilt on two counts of first-degree murder. Following a sentencing hearing the jury returned a recommendation of life imprisonment for the murder of Haberle and a recommendation of death for the murder of Patel. The trial court found the following aggravating circumstances with respect to Patel: (1) Carter was under sentence of imprisonment at the time of the capital felony (parole); (2) Carter was previously convicted of prior violent felonies (armed robbery; the murder of Fred Haberle); (3) the capital felony was committed while Carter was engaged in the commission of a robbery. In mitigation, the trial court found only that Carter suffered from a deprived childhood, a nonstatutory mitigating circumstance. The court followed the jury recommendations on both counts and sentenced Carter to death for the murder of Roy Patel.
Carter raises two arguments concerning the guilt phase of the trial. The first concerns Carter's absence during a portion of the voir dire. As Carter concedes, we have previously decided that when, as here, a defendant acquiesces to his absence from a stage of the proceeding, there is no error. Herzog v. State, 439 So.2d 1372 (Fla.1983). We decline Carter's invitation to reconsider this issue.
The second argument raised by Carter involves his mental state at the time of trial. Carter alleges the trial court erred in finding him competent to stand trial and in denying his motion to be hospitalized for a more in-depth examination. In competency determinations, the trial court is the finder of fact. It is incumbent upon the court to consider all evidence relative to competence and to render a decision on that basis. Such a decision will stand absent a showing of abuse of discretion. Bates v. State, 506 So.2d 1033 (Fla.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 873, 108 S.Ct. 212, 98 L.Ed.2d 163 (1987); Fowler v. State, 255 So.2d 513 (Fla.1971). No showing of abuse of discretion had been made here. We reject Carter's allegations that the three experts who evaluated him and found him competent conducted incomplete or "unprofessional" examinations. The only standard for determining competency to stand trial is whether Carter understood the charges against him and whether he could assist in his defense. There is competent and substantial evidence on the record to support the trial court's conclusion that Carter was competent to stand trial applying this standard.
Carter raises several issues regarding the manner in which the sentencing proceeding was conducted and the sentence he received. First, he argues the trial court failed to consider evidence in mitigation that Carter suffered from some form of mental deficiency at the time of the shootings. He contends that since each examining expert found some degree of mental deficiency, the trial court was required to accept these "overwhelming" findings in mitigation. We disagree. The psychological evaluations of Carter were less than unequivocal. Only one expert believed Carter was mentally retarded, while one believed that Carter was sociopathic, a condition that cannot be considered in mitigation. The other two experts, in finding Carter competent to stand trial, declined to diagnose any specific mental deficiency. Moreover, Carter cannot point to anything in the record which evidences a failure to consider any evidence in mitigation. The trial court did in fact consider all elements of Carter's character and record and decided that the evidence of mental deficiency was not sufficient to support a factor in mitigation.
Carter next alleges that the trial court should have instructed the jury that it could consider the mental health evidence in mitigation. However, the only evidence of mental deficiency before the jury was the testimony of Carter's cousin that Carter could not have been in his right mind at the time of the offense. Nonetheless, the trial court did instruct the jury that it could consider any aspect of Carter's character, record, or circumstances of the offense in mitigation. This instruction sufficiently alerted the jury to the fact that it could consider the slim evidence of Carter's mental...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morrison v. State
...conviction of a violent felony and commission of the murder during a robbery). See Mendoza, 700 So.2d at 672; see also Carter v. State, 576 So.2d 1291, 1293 (Fla.1989) (rejecting argument that death penalty was disproportionate because it was merely a case of a "robbery gone bad" when court......
-
Peede v. State
...decision regarding competency will stand absent a showing of abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Hardy, 716 So.2d at 764; Carter v. State, 576 So.2d 1291, 1292 (Fla.1989). Thus, the issue to be addressed by this Court is whether the circuit court abused its discretion in finding [the defendant]......
-
Boyd v. State, No. SC02-1590 (FL 2/10/2005)
...determination must be based on all relative evidence, and the decision will stand absent an abuse of discretion. Carter v. State, 576 So. 2d 1291, 1292 (Fla. 1989). When the evidence supports the decision, we have held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Mora v. State, 814 So......
-
Duest v. State
...violent felony conviction and a murder committed during a robbery in Mendoza v. State, 700 So.2d 670 (Fla.1997). In Carter v. State, 576 So.2d 1291, 1293 (Fla.1989), this Court rejected the defendant's proportionality argument based on a "robbery gone bad" where the trial court found three ......