Slater v. State
| Decision Date | 25 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 46338 and 45851,s. 46338 and 45851 |
| Citation | 316 So.2d 539 |
| Parties | Darius SLATER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Dennis SLATER, a/k/a Darius Slater, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Leon St. John and Kenneth J. Scherer, Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
These consolidated direct appeals are from a conviction of murder in the first degree and sentence to death and a conviction of robbery and sentence to life imprisonment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution.
At approximately 6:00 p.m. on August 23, 1973, the Lake Shore Motel in Orlando was robbed of two pistols and some $65.00 in cash. The manager of the motel was killed by gunshot during the robbery. Subsequently, the appellant, Darius Slater, was arrested and charged with this murder and robbery, as were two other individuals, Larry Gore and Charlie Ware.
Charlie Ware pleaded Nolo contendere to a charge of first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Larry Gore pleaded guilty to robbery and was sentenced to five years imprisonment. Both these individuals were called to the witness stand at the trial of the appellant. Although Ware was granted immunity from further prosecution, he refused to testify and was held in contempt. Larry Gore chose to testify, stating that he had been the 'wheel man' who waited outside the motel while Charlie Ware and the appellant entered the building. Gore further testified that when the appellant and Ware returned from the robbery, the appellant stated 'that Ware had made a mistake and shot him (the manager).' This testimony was corroborated by an Orlando Police Department investigator, Charlie Ings, at the proceedings in mitigation and aggravation following trial. Ings testified that Ware confessed to entering the motel with the appellant, pulling a gun on the desk clerk, and accidentally shooting the clerk when his thumb slipped off the hammer of the gun. The appellant allegedly grabbed the money box, and both he and Ware ran out to join Gore. The appellant, testifying in his own behalf at the trial, asserted that he was not present when the robbery and murder were committed.
The jury found the appellant guilty of robbery as charged in the information and of first degree murder as charged in the indictment. Subsequent to the conviction of murder in the first degree, a sentence advisory hearing was held pursuant to Section 921.141, Florida Statutes (1973), at which the jury was properly instructed to consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. By vote of 11 to 1, the jury returned an advisory sentence of life imprisonment. The judge ordered the Florida Parole and Probation Commission to prepare a presentence investigation upon the defendant. After considering the advisory opinion and the presentence investigation, the trial judge entered his 'Findings in Support of Verdict Overruling Jury Recommendations,' which are as follows:
'The Court has considered the itemized points for consideration in aggravation and in mitigation set forth in Florida Statute Section 921.141 and has also considered the jury's recommendation of life imprisonment and has for the reasons set forth in open court at the time of sentencing and now made a part of the record together with the following reasons, exercised its discretion, and notwithstanding the recommendation of a majority of the jury, has imposed a sentence of death upon the Defendant.
'The Defendant created a great risk of death not only to the victim, but the risk of death was also present to any unknown persons who might have chanced into the office at the time of the robbery and this must have been known to the Defendant since the office was a public place in the motel in the early evening hours. The murder was committed while in the act of a robbery and for pecuniary gain. The murder was atrocious in that it was a scheme that was premeditated, calculated and executed in a cold-blooded fashion wherein it was clearly demonstrated that human life was given a very low value.
'The only item in mitigation to be considered is the light criminal record of the Defendant and that is not in the least bit compelling. The Defendant has been under investigation before and this Court finds it incredible that the Defendant's first crime would be the one of robbery and murder.
'It is, therefore, for the above-stated reasons and for those reasons stated in open court subsequently transcribed and now attached to these findings, that the jury's recommendation for life imprisonment is overruled and the death penalty is imposed.'
The reasons set forth by the trial judge in open court, transcribed in the record, incorporated into his above order, and attached thereto, are as follows:
'. . . It's difficult to determine exactly what case is or is not the fitting case to impose the death penalty upon. But, in this Court's estimation, or understanding, armed robbery is one of the most serious offenses that can be committed.
'It is a premeditated offense; where one man has decided coldly, calculatingly, way in advance, to arm himself and go to a neighbor and confront him with the choice of giving him his money or forfeiting his life. That is a very barbaric and base set of values.
'I cannot think in my own mind of any crime more serious. We're not involved here in this case in a passion killing or something where an act was committed in the heat of anger without an opportunity for cool reflection.
'In considering the matters that would be in mitigation, one might think that Darius was an accessory and not the actual perpetrator of the murder. I don't feel you can treat Darius and Charles Ware separately in that fashion.
'They planned together to arm themselves and go to the Lake Shore Motor Lodge and threaten to kill a man if he did not turn over his money, they did, they together, and the man died.
'Whichever one of them pulled the trigger is almost a matter of chance. Whether or not it was an accident I don't even feel is worthy of consideration. You don't cock a gun in a man's face and have it go off and say, oh dear, that was an accident, any more than you drink excessive quantities of liquor and go out and drive and kill a man and say it was an accident. You created the situation, you put your cards on the table, you play for high stakes, and you bear the consequences.
'The only other matter that could be considered is that the defendant has no extensive prior criminal record. This of course is not to be taken lightly, but itself, it waves a red flag in my mind that his first offense should be robbery and murder.
'I'm not an advocate of the theory that you give the dog two bites.
'Another matter that you might possibly consider as being in mitigation would be the age. The defendant is 24 years old, that is not young. He has seven years into his majority. Many people have graduated from college by that age, have taken on positions of great responsibility, have served in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Routly v. Singletary, 93-2930
...this factor was not warranted in this case; we agree. The case at bar is distinguishable on this issue from cases such as Slater v. State, 316 So.2d 539 (Fla.1975), where a more culpable co-defendant received a less severe sentence than the appellant, and there was no error in treating the ......
-
People v. Wilder
...S.W.2d 317 (1970), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Turner v. Arkansas, 407 U.S. 366, 92 S.Ct. 2096, 32 L.Ed.2d 798 (1972); Slater v. State, 316 So.2d 539 (Fla.1975); State v. Briggs, 533 S.W.2d 290 (Tenn.1976).In resolving the question before us, some courts have referred to the doctrine of......
-
Beardslee v. Woodford
...v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972). He cites a Florida case in support of this proposition, Slater v. State, 316 So.2d 539, 542 (Fla. 1975). However, the facts in that case are far different. In Slater, the trial court had disregarded a jury recommendation and im......
-
Spinkellink v. Wainwright
...that it has reviewed to date. See Taylor v. State, 294 So.2d 648 (Fla.1974); Lamadline v. State, 303 So.2d 17 (Fla.1974); Slater v. State, 316 So.2d 539 (Fla.1974); Swan v. State, 322 So.2d 485 (Fla.1975); Tedder v. State, 322 So.2d 908 (Fla.1975); Halliwell v. State, 323 So.2d 557 (Fla.197......