JOHN ERROLL FERGUSON, 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.
John Erroll Ferguson appeals his death sentence following resentencing ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. The Court affirms the death sentence, finding no error in the trial court's refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing, its application of the cold, calculated, and premeditated aggravating factor, or its consideration of evidence during resentencing.
The Court held that: (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing an evidentiary hearing based on an insufficient offer of proof; (2) the 'cold, calculated and premeditated' aggravating circumstance was properly applied as evidence of this manner was always in the record and nothing prohibited its application on resentencing; and (3) Ferguson's confrontation right was not violated by the trial court's consideration of evidence in the record.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow an evidentiary hearing for resentencing when the offer of proof is insufficient to warrant reopening the…
[2] A trial court may consider an aggravating factor of a "cold, calculated and premeditated" murder if evidence of such a manner of commission has always been present in the…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow an evidentiary hearing”
Establishes that the trial court properly exercised discretion on remand in determining whether to permit additional evidentiary proceedings based on the sufficiency of the offer of proof.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFerguson was convicted of first-degree murder. The Court initially reversed and remanded for resentencing because the trial court had improperly appli…
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 Capacity To Appreciate Criminality cases and more on FLexlaw
ADKINS, Justice.
This is a consolidated appeal of the re-sentencing of appellant to death. Jurisdiction is properly invoked pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1), of the Florida Constitution. We affirm appellant’s sentence of death.
On July 15, 1982, this Court affirmed appellant’s convictions for first-degree murder but reversed and remanded the causes to the trial court for resentencing upon a proper consideration of the mitigating circumstances under § 921.141(6)(b) and (f), Florida Statutes (1977), relating to appellant’s mental state and his ability to appreciate the criminality of his conduct. Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 631 (Fla.1982); Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 639 (Fla.1982). The trial court, Judge Richard S. Fuller presiding, had improperly used a “sanity” type analysis in rejecting these mitigating circumstances. See Mines v. State, 390 So. 2d 332, 337 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 916, 101 S.Ct. 1994, 68 L.Ed.2d 308 (1981).
On April 19,1983, a resentencing hearing was held before Judge Herbert Klein. At that time, appellant made a motion to bring in witnesses to testify as to the mitigating factors. Judge Klein denied that motion referring to this Court’s indication that another advisory jury would not be necessary. On May 27, 1983, Judge Klein entered his findings in support of the death sentence, resentencing appellant to death. With regard to mitigation under § 921.-141(6)(b) and (f) the trial court stated that “there is some evidence to indicate that the felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental disturbance and that the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct so as to conform his conduct to the requirements of law may have been substantially impaired.” The trial court concluded its findings in support of the death penalty in stating “that sufficient aggravating circumstances exist for the imposition of the sentence of death and that there are insufficient mitigating circumstances that outweigh the aggravating circumstances.” The facts of these now consolidated cases are set forth at 417 So. 2d 631 and 417 So. 2d 639.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to allow an evidentiary hearing for the purpose of resentencing. On remand, the trial court ordered counsel for appellant to make an offer of proof to enable it to determine whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The trial court stated that the given offer of proof was insufficient to warrant reopening the case for such hearing. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow an evidentiary hearing.
Appellant next contends that the trial court erred in applying the aggravating factor of a “cold, calculated and premeditated” murder. We disagree. Evidence that the murders committed by appellant were committed in a “cold, calculated and premeditated” manner has always been present in the record before us. We thus find no error in the trial court’s consideration of this aggravating circumstance on remand for resentencing. See Spaziano v. State, 433 So. 2d 508 (Fla.1983), aff'd, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 3154, 82 L.Ed.2d 340 (1984). We further find that nothing in the federal or state constitution prohibited the application of the then new aggravating circumstance to any pending cause present ed -for sentencing. See Preston v. State, 444 So. 2d 939 (Fla.1984).
Appellant finally argues that his right to confront witnesses was violated when the trial court considered evidence not of record in this case. There is no merit in this contention.
Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s sentence of death.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDonald, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coleman v. State, 610 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1992)…point with the instant case, and any sentence for Coleman .other than death would be disproportionate. See Correll v. State, 523 So. 2d 562 (Fla.) (four victims), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 183, 102 L.Ed.2d 152 (1988); Ferguson v. State, 474 So. 2d 208 (Fla.1985) (execution-style killing of six victims warrants death); Francois v. State, 407 So. 2d 885 (Fla.1981) (same), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1122, 102 S.Ct. 3511, 73 L.Ed.2d 1384 (1982). We reach this conclusion, even though we have struck one of…
-
Ferguson v. Singletary, 632 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1993)…417 So. 2d 639 (Fla.1982) (Carol City); Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 631 (Fla.1982) (Hialeah). After a consolidated resen-tencing hearing, the trial court again imposed all eight sentences of death. This Court affirmed on appeal. Ferguson v. State, 474 So. 2d 208 (Fla.1985). Ferguson then filed a petition for relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which was denied by the circuit court after an evidentiary hearing. This Court affirmed on appeal. Ferguson v. State, 593 So. 2d 508 (Fla.199…
-
Robinson v. State, 610 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1992)…esidential robbery), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1229, 103 S.Ct. 3571, 77 L.Ed.2d 1412 (1983). As with Coleman, any sentence other than death for Robinson would be disproportionate. See Bolen-der (four victims); Correll (four victims); Ferguson v. State, 474 So. 2d 208 (Fla.1985) (six victims); Francois v. State, 407 So. 2d 885 (Fla.1981) (six victims), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1122, 102 S.Ct. 3511, 73 L.Ed.2d 1384 (1982). Striking one of the aggrava-tors does not alter this conclusion because there is no reasonable…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 447 (U.S. 1984)
- Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1982)
- Preston v. State, 444 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 1984)
- Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1982)
- Spaziano v. State, 433 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1983)
- Windford Mines v. State, 390 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1980)
- Jones v. Estelle, 451 U.S. 916 (U.S. 1981)
- Wright v. Nigh, 451 U.S. 916 (U.S. 1981)