Bevel v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed Thomas Bevel's convictions for two counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted first-degree murder, as well as his two death sentences. The court rejected or found unpreserved challenges concerning juror selection, crime-scene photographs, the admission of Bevel's confession after a Miranda waiver, and the sufficiency of the evidence. It also upheld the trial court's findings regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including the prior violent felony and avoid-arrest aggravators.

Holdings

1. A defendant does not preserve a claim concerning denial of a cause challenge unless the defendant objects, exhausts peremptory challenges, requests additional peremptory challenges that are denied, and identifies a specific objectionable juror whom the defendant would have removed.
2. The challenged photographs were relevant, and their probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting them.
3. A specific IQ level does not establish a per se inability to knowingly and intelligently waive Miranda rights; waiver must be determined from the totality of the circumstances.
4. Competent, substantial evidence supported Bevel's convictions for two first-degree murders and attempted first-degree murder.
5. The prior-violent-felony aggravator was properly applied to both murder convictions based on Bevel's contemporaneous murder and attempted-murder convictions and his prior attempted-robbery conviction.
6. The avoid-arrest aggravator was properly applied to the murder of Sims because competent, substantial evidence showed that eliminating Sims as a witness was the sole or dominant motive.
7. The trial court did not err in rejecting proposed mitigation that was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence or in assigning limited weight to the mitigation it found.
8. A sentencing court may not merely rubber-stamp proposed findings, but relief is unwarranted when the sentencing order reflects the judge's independent judgment concerning aggravators, mitigators, and their weight.
9. The death sentences were proportionate under the totality of the circumstances.
10. Roper v. Simmons prohibits execution based on chronological age below eighteen at the time of the offense, not based on a claimed mental age below eighteen.
11. Apprendi and Ring did not invalidate Bevel's death sentences because the prior-violent-felony aggravator applied to both sentences.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by failing to excuse a prospective juror for cause.
2. Whether the trial court improperly admitted crime-scene photographs.
3. Whether Bevel knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights despite his low IQ.
4. Whether competent, substantial evidence supported the murder convictions.
5. Whether the trial court properly found the prior-violent-felony and avoid-arrest aggravating circumstances.
6. Whether the trial court properly found, weighed, and evaluated the proposed mitigating circumstances.
7. Whether the trial court improperly adopted the State's proposed sentencing findings.
8. Whether the death sentences were disproportionate.
9. Whether Roper v. Simmons prohibited execution based on Bevel's claimed mental age.
10. Whether Florida's capital-sentencing scheme violated Apprendi and Ring because the judge, rather than a unanimous jury, made findings concerning aggravating circumstances.

Disposition

affirmed