Groover v. State, 79199
| Decision Date | 05 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 79199,79199 |
| Citation | 640 So.2d 1077 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly S249 Tommy Sands GROOVER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Michael J. Minerva, Capital Collateral Representative, Gail E. Anderson and Harun Shabazz, Assistant Capital Collateral Representatives, Office of Capital Collateral Representative, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Mark C. Menser, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Tommy Sands Groover, a prisoner under two sentences of death, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We have jurisdiction based on article V, section 3(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution. We affirm the trial court and deny relief on each of the four claims Groover raises. 1
Groover was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder. He was sentenced to death on two counts and to life imprisonment on the third count. This Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. Groover v. State, 458 So.2d 226 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1009, 105 S.Ct. 1877, 85 L.Ed.2d 169 (1985). This Court subsequently denied Groover's first motion to vacate judgment and sentence pursuant to Rule 3.850. Groover v. State, 574 So.2d 97 (Fla.1991); Groover v. State, 489 So.2d 15 (Fla.1986).
We find procedural bars or no merit to the four claims Groover raises on this appeal. 2 We address only two issues.
First, Groover argues that his death sentences are neither individualized nor reliable because the trial court failed to consider nonstatutory mitigation. Thus, he argues, the sentences violate Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393, 107 S.Ct. 1821, 95 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), and its progeny. Hitchcock requires an advisory jury and the sentencing judge to consider nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. Id. at 398-99, 107 S.Ct. at 1824-25.
We rejected Groover's argument on direct appeal that the trial court failed to consider nonstatutory mitigating evidence. Groover, 458 So.2d at 229. We also found meritless Groover's claim on his first 3.850 motion that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present more evidence in mitigation during sentencing proceedings. Groover, 489 So.2d at 16.
Although Hitchcock had not been decided when Groover was sentenced, the record reflects that the trial court considered nonstatutory mitigation when it sentenced Groover to death. In its jury instructions during the penalty phase, the court told jurors to consider statutory aggravating and mitigating factors and added, "[a]nd you may also consider any other circumstances of the offenses." In its sentencing order, the trial court summarized the statutory mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but not the nonstatutory mitigators. However, the order says:
Before imposing sentence, this Court has carefully studied and considered all the evidence and testimony at trial and at advisory sentencing proceedings, the Presentence Investigation Report, the applicable Florida Statutes, the case law, and all other factors touching upon this case.
(Emphasis added.)
When a trial judge instructs a jury that it can consider nonstatutory mitigating evidence, "[w]e must presume that the judge followed his own instructions to the jury...." Johnson v. Dugger, 520 So.2d 565, 566 (Fla.1988). 3 That presumption is buttressed in this case by the fact that the sentencing jurors recommended two life sentences for Groover. The trial judge overrode only one of those life sentences. Because the trial judge did not find any statutory mitigating factors, it seems clear that he took into account nonstatutory mitigation when he imposed one life sentence.
Second, Groover argues that the trial court erred by adopting the State's proposed order denying relief on his 3.850 motion. We find no due process problems similar to those in Rose v. State, 601 So.2d 1181 (Fla.1992), and Huff v. State, 622 So.2d 982 (Fla.1993), and thus find no merit to Groover's argument.
In Rose the defendant was not served with a copy of the State's proposed order, which the trial court adopted in its entirety, and did not have an opportunity to object. 601 So.2d at 1182. Under the circumstances, this Court assumed ex parte communication between the trial court and the State. Id. at 1183. In Huff the State submitted a proposed order denying Huff all relief on his 3.850 motion. 622 So.2d at 983. Huff's counsel received a copy of the motion, but did not have a chance to raise objections or to submit an alternative order. Id. There was no hearing in either Rose or Huff.
In the instant case,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. State
...to submit his or her own proposal and/or objections. See, e.g., Patton v. State, 784 So. 2d 380, 386-91 (Fla. 2000); Groover v. State, 640 So. 2d 1077, 1078-79 (Fla. 1994). In Groover, for example, this Court held that the trial court's adoption of the State's proposed order denying a capit......
-
Jackson v. State
...to submit his or her own proposal and/or objections. See, e.g., Patton v. State, 784 So.2d 380, 386–91 (Fla.2000); Groover v. State, 640 So.2d 1077, 1078–79 (Fla.1994). In Groover, for example, this Court held that the trial court's adoption of the State's proposed order denying a capital d......
-
Teffeteller v. Dugger
...consider nonstatutory mitigating evidence, we must assume that the judge followed his own instructions to the jury. See Groover v. State, 640 So.2d 1077, 1078 (Fla.1994). Thus, Teffeteller is not entitled to relief on this Claim 19 is repetitive of the Enmund-Tison claim raised in Teffetell......
-
Pietri v. State
...to submit his or her own proposal and/or objections. See, e.g., Patton v. State, 784 So.2d 380, 386-91 (Fla.2000); Groover v. State, 640 So.2d 1077, 1078-79 (Fla.1994). In Groover, for example, this Court held that the trial court's adoption of the State's proposed order denying a capital d......