Craft v. State

312 So.3d 45

Robert CRAFT, Appellant,

v.STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. SC19-953

Supreme Court of Florida.

November 19, 2020

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Richard M. Bracey, III, Assistant Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellant

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and William David Chappell, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee

PER CURIAM.

Robert Craft appeals his conviction for first-degree murder and his sentence of death. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. For the reasons below, we affirm Craft's conviction and sentence of death.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 16, 2018, Craft strangled and beat to death Darren W. Shira in the cell they shared at Columbia Correctional Institution. Following Shira's murder, Craft confessed multiple times, including in two recorded statements to Special Agent Terrance Tyler of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and in letters to the state attorney's office and the trial court.

The trial court accurately summarized Craft's statements and the circumstances of the killing in the sentencing order, in pertinent part, as follows:

[T]he Defendant [admitted] that he "tortured" the victim "on purpose." He explained the various methods and manner in which he attacked the victim over approximately 30 minutes [and] ... [h]e admitted that he only stopped this relentless attack when the victim's feet turned purple, there was blood coming out of the victim's nose, and the victim's eyes were bulging. ...

....

... The Defendant admitted that the victim did not pose a threat to him nor did the victim initiate the altercation. Rather, the Defendant admitted that the victim was lying on his bed when the Defendant initiated the attack by slapping the victim's feet. As soon as the victim sat up, the Defendant smacked or punched the victim's face and then launched into a physical attack that lasted, according to the Defendant, about a half hour.

The Defendant explained that he first attempted to crush the victim's neck but that this proved more difficult than in the movies, so he had to strangle the victim. The victim offered minimal resistance. Nonetheless, the Defendant "beat on" the victim with his fists, continued to choke the victim, and pulled the victim off of his bed and onto the floor where the Defendant used his feet against the wall as leverage to push down on the victim's throat. The Defendant also tore off the white stripe that runs down the side of the prison pants and tied this around the victim's neck. ...

....

[Further,] ... the Defendant admitted that he had planned the murder. Specifically, he explained that, after learning that the victim was in prison for allegedly molesting children, the Defendant determined that he was going to kill the victim and immediately began planning the murder, which he committed a few days later. According to his own admission, the Defendant waited because he first wanted to inform his sister, via letter, that he was going to "catch a body." He also informed other inmates, prior to the killing, that he was going to kill the victim and was even offered a knife for the killing, which he refused. Another inmate, according to the Defendant, attempted to convince the Defendant not to do it. The Defendant also realized that the killing would likely be bloody, so he removed the victim's pants and donned them during the attack to prevent his pants from getting covered in blood. He further admitted that he had intended to sodomize the victim but that he could not do that. Moreover, while explaining to Special Agent Tyler that he had planned the murder for a few days, he stated that he wanted the murder to be "CCP" and even asked if it would be considered a hate crime because the victim was Jewish, gay, a child molester, and ex-Navy. The Defendant also told Special Agent Tyler that he had told the victim, while they were eating dinner [just before the killing], that this was the victim's last meal and that it was a pretty "f[***]ed up" last meal.[n.6]

[N.6] Even the discovery of the body was orchestrated by the Defendant: he told the inmate trustee that he had some trash, and when directed to slide it under the door of his cell, he stated that a dead body would not fit.

(Footnote omitted.)

Craft was indicted for the victim's first-degree murder under the theory of premeditated murder on October 1, 2018. Shortly thereafter, he began expressing his desires to quickly end his case, plead guilty, waive a penalty-phase jury, waive mitigation, and receive the death penalty—both in letters to the state attorney's office and in a pro se "Motion for Faretta Hearing and Recusal of Counsel" filed in January 2019.

The trial court held a hearing on January 23, 2019, during which Craft maintained that he wanted to waive counsel and represent himself, that he wanted to proceed with a speedy bench trial, and that he did "not want mitigation." At the hearing, the trial court asked Craft, "Do you know what the matters in mitigation are?" Craft responded, "Mitigation is to investigate, research and find if there's anything basically that would prevent me from getting the death penalty." The trial court further explained that mitigation can be "something that happened in [Craft's] childhood, whether it was something that happened during the case itself, whether it has to do with psychological, psychiatric problems.... It can have to do with ... injuries, all kinds of things," and Craft indicated that he understood. The trial court deferred ruling on Craft's pro se motion pending evaluation of Craft by two mental health experts to determine his competency to proceed.

Both experts examined Craft on March 25, 2019, and thereafter submitted reports finding him competent. In finding Craft competent, Dr. Chris P. Robison noted that Craft "articulated a coherent rationale to support his determination to represent himself, plead guilty to the alleged offense and waive the opportunity to present mitigation testimony in his case, which would likely result in imposition of the death penalty in his case." Similarly, Dr. Salvatore M. Blandino noted that Craft "is competent to proceed and to go pro-se if he decides to proceed in this manner." (Emphasis omitted.)

On March 27, 2019, based on the experts’ evaluations, the trial court orally found Craft competent, conducted a Faretta¹ inquiry, ruled that Craft could waive counsel and represent himself, and appointed standby counsel. Craft immediately announced his desire to plead guilty. After taking a recess during which Craft and the State discussed the written plea form, the trial court conducted an extensive plea colloquy with Craft, using the colloquy outlined in this Court's decision in Lynch v. State , 841 So. 2d 362, 376-77 (Fla. 2003), as a guide.

During the plea colloquy, the trial court explained the constitutional rights that Craft would be waiving with a guilty plea, including the right to a trial by jury, and further explained that if Craft pleaded guilty the case would move directly to the penalty phase. Craft stated that he understood that by pleading guilty he was waiving his right to have a jury determine whether he was guilty or not; that the only two possible sentences for first-degree murder are life imprisonment or death; that his case would proceed directly to the penalty phase as a result of his plea; and that he was not threatened or coerced into pleading guilty or promised a specific sentence in return for his plea. Craft further stated that he was pleading guilty to the factual basis submitted by the State to support the plea, which was as follows:

The indictment in this case and the evidence that supports it were that Mr. Craft on May the 16th, on or about that date, 2018, in Columbia County, specifically at the Columbia Correctional Institution, unlawfully and from a premeditated design and intent to effect the death of [the victim] did kill him by inflicting upon him mortal wounds and injuries, specifically Mr. Craft beat [the victim] and strangled him.

As [Craft] just indicated during the plea colloquy ... in terms of how long he had been thinking about it ..., since May 15th, that was while he was in a cell with [the victim] prior to the killing, further indicating a premeditated design and intent to effect the death of his cellmate.

... [O]n May the 16th, Columbia Correctional Institute personnel arrived at Mr. Craft's cell. Mr. Craft indicated to them that he had killed his cellmate. He then reiterated the same, indicating the manner in which he had done it, by beating and strangling him, in further interviews to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and further detailed in letters and correspondence that he has sent to the office of the state attorney of his plan to effect the death of [the victim] and his actions in carrying out said acts. All again occurring within Columbia County, contrary to Florida Statute 782.04 [(1)].

Thereafter, the trial court accepted Craft's plea, finding that it was "freely, voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently given."

During the March 27 plea colloquy, Craft had also stated that he wanted to waive his right to a penalty-phase jury. In response, the trial court provided a detailed explanation of how the penalty phase is conducted, including the presentation of aggravators and mitigators, and explained the procedure if a jury is not waived and the procedure if a jury is waived. The trial court paused its explanation several times to ask Craft if he understood, and each time Craft stated that he did, and he also indicated that he had "already gone over that with [his prior] attorney." After accepting Craft's plea, the trial court announced its intent to order a presentence investigation report (PSI).

After the PSI was completed, the penalty-phase proceeding was held on May 13, 2019. There, Craft maintained his desire to continue to waive counsel and represent himself, and he also maintained his desire to waive his...