McKenzie v. State
Decision Date | 10 February 2022 |
Docket Number | SC20-243 |
Citation | 333 So.3d 1098 |
Parties | Norman Blake MCKENZIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Jeffrey D. Deen, Regional Counsel, and Michael P. Reiter, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Fifth District, Ocala, Florida, for Appellant
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Doris Meacham, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, Florida, for Appellee
Norman Blake McKenzie was convicted and sentenced to death for the first-degree murders of Randy Wayne Peacock and Charles Frank Johnston in St. Johns County. Originally convicted and sentenced to death in 2007, McKenzie received a new penalty phase in light of Hurst v. State , 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), receded from in part by State v. Poole , 297 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 2020). In February 2020, McKenzie was resentenced to death for both murders. This is the direct appeal of his resentencing. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. We affirm McKenzie's sentences of death.
On direct appeal, this Court set forth the following facts:
McKenzie v. State , 29 So. 3d 272, 275-77 (Fla. 2010) (footnote omitted).
During the initial penalty phase, the jury recommended by votes of ten to two that McKenzie be sentenced to death for both murders. Id. at 277. Following a Spencer1 hearing, the trial court sentenced McKenzie to death for the murders.2
This Court affirmed McKenzie's convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Id. at 288. On postconviction, this Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851, and it denied habeas relief. See McKenzie v. State , 153 So. 3d 867, 885 (Fla. 2014). However, McKenzie filed a successive motion for postconviction relief after this Court's decision in Hurst v. State , and the circuit court granted McKenzie a new penalty phase.
McKenzie's second penalty phase was tried before a new jury in August 2019. The State and the defense each presented evidence, following which the jury unanimously found—as to each murder—that the State established the existence of five proposed aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) McKenzie was previously convicted of a capital felony or a felony involving the use or threat of violence to a person (based on the contemporaneous murders of Johnston and Peacock, and also based on eight prior violent felony convictions); (2) the first-degree murder was committed while McKenzie was engaged in the commission of a robbery; (3) the first-degree murder was committed for financial gain; (4) the first-degree murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC); and (5) the first-degree murder was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner, without any pretense of moral or legal justification (CCP).
The jury also unanimously found that the aggravating factors were sufficient to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wells v. State
...argues that our case law is wrong, he has provided us with no substantial reason to question our prior holdings. See McKenzie v. State, 333 So.3d 1098, 1105-06 (Fla. 2022) (declining to revisit Poole); Davidson v. State, 323 So.3d 1241, 1248 (Fla. 2021) (finding that arguments comparable to......
-
Ritchie v. State
... ... See Windom v. State , 656 So. 2d 432, 438 (Fla. 1995). Although Ritchie asks us to reconsider our decision in Windom , his arguments do not persuade us that our precedent is "clearly erroneous." State v. Poole , 297 So. 3d 487, 507 (Fla. 2020) ; see also McKenzie v. State , 333 So. 3d 1098, 1105 & n.3 (Fla. 2022) (explaining that admission of the victim impact evidence authorized by section 921.141(8) "is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Payne v. Tennessee , 501 U.S. 808, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991)" (quoting Victorino v. State ... ...
-
Ritchie v. State
... ... So.2d 432, 438 (Fla. 1995). Although Ritchie asks us to ... reconsider our decision in Windom , his arguments do ... not persuade us that our precedent is "clearly ... erroneous." State v. Poole , 297 So.3d 487, 507 ... (Fla. 2020); see also McKenzie v. State , 333 So.3d ... 1098, 1105 & n.3 (Fla. Feb. 2022) (explaining that ... admission of the victim impact evidence authorized by section ... 921.141(8) "is consistent with the Supreme Court's ... decision in Payne v. Tennessee , 501 U.S. 808 ... (1991)" (quoting ... ...
-
Bevel v. State
... ... for federal review. Bevel is correct that we have repeatedly ... reaffirmed our conclusion that determinations regarding the ... sufficiency and relative weight of the proven aggravators are ... not subject to proof beyond a reasonable doubt ... E.g. , McKenzie v. State , 333 So.3d 1098, ... 1105 (Fla.), cert. denied , 143 S.Ct. 230 (2022); ... Joseph v. State , 336 So.3d 218, 227 (Fla.), ... cert. denied , 143 S.Ct. 183 (2022); Davidson v ... State , 323 So.3d 1241, 1247-48 (Fla. 2021), cert ... denied , 142 S.Ct ... ...