LARRY EUGENE MANN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
On remand from a prior appeal that vacated Mann's death sentence, the trial court again sentenced Mann to death for first-degree murder after conducting a new sentencing proceeding. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the state properly presented additional evidence at resentencing to establish the aggravating circumstance of a prior violent felony conviction.
The court held that the aggravating circumstance of a prior violent felony conviction was properly established. The state was permitted to present additional evidence at the resentencing proceeding because the remand directed a new sentencing proceeding, not merely a reweighing of evidence. The additional evidence—the Mississippi indictment, conviction, and victim testimony—sufficiently established that the burglary involved a crime of violence.
[1] A prior conviction may establish the aggravating circumstance of a previous conviction of a violent felony if the underlying offense, as charged and proven, constitutes a…
[2] A remand for resentencing permits the presentation of additional evidence by either party.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Our remand directed a new sentencing proceeding, not just a reweighing. In such a proceeding both sides may, if they choose, present additional evidence.”
Establishes that parties may introduce new evidence at resentencing after a full remand, distinguishing it from mere reweighing of existing evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMann was convicted of first-degree murder and kidnapping. At the original sentencing proceeding, the state presented evidence of a Mississippi burglar…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Heinous, Atrocious, Or Cruel Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A jury convicted Mann of first-degree murder and kidnapping and recommended the death penalty. The trial court sentenced Mann to death for the murder and to ninety-nine years for the kidnapping. On appeal we affirmed the convictions, but vacated the death sentence and remanded for resentencing. Mann v. State, 420 So. 2d 578 (Fla.1982). On remand the trial court conducted a new sentencing proceeding without a jury and again sentenced Mann to death. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution and affirm the death sentence.
In Mann’s original sentencing proceeding the state introduced a copy of a conviction showing that Mann had been convicted of burglary in Mississippi. The state also presented evidence (testimony of the victim) to show that Mann committed a sexual battery upon the occupant of the house he burgled. Relying on this conviction and supporting evidence, the trial court found that the aggravating circumstance of previous conviction of a violent felony had been established. § 921.141(5)(b), Fla.Stat. (1979).
On appeal we held that the trial court had erroneously found this aggravating circumstance because burglary is not a crime of violence on its face. 420 So. 2d at 580. We also held that the trial court had improperly found the establishment of another aggravating circumstance and that we could not tell what the trial court found regarding the mitigating evidence that Mann presented. We therefore vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
On resentencing the trial court deleted the second improper aggravating factor and specifically found in mitigation that Mann suffered from psychotic depression and feelings of rage. The court also again found that the prior Mississippi conviction established the aggravating factor of previ ous conviction of a violent felony. We hold that this aggravating circumstance has now been established.
Besides relying on the evidence presented in the first sentencing proceeding, at resentencing the state introduced a copy of a Mississippi indictment charging Mann with burglary both with the intent to commit unnatural carnal intercourse and that he did commit that crime against a named female person. Mann now claims that our first opinion precluded the state from presenting additional evidence. We disagree.
Our remand directed a new sentencing proceeding, not just a reweighing. In such a proceeding both sides may, if they choose, present additional evidence. Moreover, as we stated previously: “We are not presented with a copy of the Mississippi charge document and, thus, cannot determine whether it alleged, and the jury convicted him of, a breaking with intent to commit a crime of violence.” Id. at 581. The state remedied this omission on resentencing, and the proof — the indictment, the conviction, and the victim’s testimony — establishes a prior conviction of a violent felony.
In aggravation the trial court also again found the murder to have been committed during the course of a kidnapping and to have been especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel. He found that the three established aggravating circumstances outweighed the single mitigating circumstance and again sentenced Mann to death. Compare Adams v. State, 412 So. 2d 850 (Fla.1982) (eight-year-old girl strangled, mitigating circumstances of emotional disturbance outweighed by aggravating circumstances). We find no error and affirm the sentence.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (26 total)
-
Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2007)…resentencing court is not limited by evidence presented (or not presented) in ... the original ... sentencing phase.” Id. at 387 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Rather, both sides are entitled to produce additional evidence. See Mann v. State, 453 So. 2d 784, 786 (Fla.1984) (explaining that at a de novo resentencing “both sides may, if they choose, present additional evidence”). In fact, because resentencing is de novo, the State was required to produce evidence on sentencing issues even if the State es…
-
Lucas v. State, 568 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1990)…uffering became a feature of the trial. We disagree. Testimony by the victims, or others, about prior crimes is admissible if the defendant is given the opportunity to confront the witness. Rhodes v. State, 547 So. 2d 1201 (Fla.1989); Mann v. State, 453 So. 2d 784 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1181, 105 S.Ct. 940, 83 L.Ed.2d 953 (1985); Elledge v. State, 346 So. 2d 998 (Fla.1977). Moreover, “[bjecause a jury cannot be expected to make a decision in a vacuum, it must be made aware of the underlying facts.…
-
Stano v. State, 473 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1985)…made a feature of the trial. Williams v. State, 117 So. 2d 473 (Fla.1960). In a sentencing proceeding the state may introduce testimony as to the circumstances of a prior conviction, rather than just the bare fact of that conviction. Mann v. State, 453 So. 2d 784 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 940, 83 L.Ed.2d 953 (1985); Elledge v. State, 346 So. 2d 998 (Fla.1977). One person with eight prior convictions of first-degree murder presents an unusual situation. Stano v. State, 460 So. 2d 890, 894…
Previewing 3 of 26 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Adams v. State, 412 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1982)
- Mann v. State, 420 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1982)