Gary LAWRENCE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee, 698 So. 2d 1219

SHAW, Justice. We have on appeal the judgment and sentence of the trial court imposing the death penalty on Gary Lawrence. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. We affirm. Shortly after Gary and Brenda Lawrence were married, they separated, and another man, Michael Finken, moved in with Brenda and her two daughters, Stephanie and Kimberly Pitts, and Stephanie’s friend, Rachel Matin. On the day of the murder, July 28, 1994, Gary and Michael drove Brenda to work and then drank beer at a friend’s house.

Later, Gary and Michael picked Brenda up and the three returned to the friend’s house where they drank more beer. After the three returned to Brenda’s apartment, Gary and Michael argued and Gary hit Michael when he learned that Michael had been sleeping with Brenda. Gary and Michael seemed to resolve their differences, and Michael fell asleep on the couch. Gary and Brenda conversed, and Brenda went through the house collecting weapons — -including a pipe and a baseball bat.

Gary and Brenda told Kimberly and Rachel that they were “going to knock off Mike.” Gary told Kimberly to “stay in your bedroom no matter what you hear.” The trial court described what happened after Gary and Brenda spoke to the girls: Thereafter, the two girls heard what they described as a pounding sound. At one point, Rachel Matin stated that she heard the victim say, “stop it, if you stop, I’ll leave.” She stated that she heard that statement several times. Kimberly Pitts stated she heard the victim say “please don’t hit me, I’m already bleeding.” The victim’s pleas, however, were met with more pounding.

Once the pounding stopped, the girls were required to assist in the clean up and described to the jury what they observed. Kimberly stated that much of the victim’s right side of his face was missing and his chin was knocked over to his ear. Rachel Matin stated that there was no skin left on the victim’s face and part of his nose was missing. Apparently the victim was still alive.

Kimberly observed her mother coming out of the kitchen area with what appeared to be a dagger and then, although not seeing the dagger in her hand at the time, observed her mother make a stabbing motion toward the victim with something in her hand. It was at that time when Brenda Lawrence requested that the girls obtain the assistance of Chris Wetherbee. Upon his entrance into the home, Cris Wetherbee observed the victim’s head being caved in, blood all over, the victim’s eyeball protruding approximately three inches and a mop handle shoved into the victim’s throat.

Wetherbee asked Gary Lawrence, “what’s going on?” At which time the Defendant responded by pulling out the mop handle and kicking the victim and making the statement “this is what’s going on.” Immediately after removing the mop handle from the victim’s throat, Wetherbee heard the victim give approximately three or four ragged breaths at which time the victim thereafter stopped breathing and apparently expired. The Defendant, Gary Lawrence, told Wetherbee that he had beat him with a pipe until it bent and then beat him with a baseball bat.

Chris Wetherbee summarized the victim’s state: “And [he] looked like something off of one of the real good horror movies.” Gary and Brenda then removed a small amount of money from Michael’s pockets, wrapped the body in a shower curtain and placed the body in Michael’s car, and Gary drove to a secluded area where he set the body afire. When Gary returned home, he and Brenda danced. Gary Lawrence was arrested later that evening driving Michael’s car and subsequently confessed, admitting that he had beaten Michael because Michael had been sleeping with Brenda.

Lawrence was charged with first-degree murder, robbery, grand theft of a motor vehicle, and conspiracy to commit murder. At trial, the medical examiner testified as follows: Michael died of blunt trauma and possible asphyxia; Michael was alive when the mop handle was thrust down his throat; Michael’s blood alcohol level was very high; and one or more of the blows to Michael’s head could have caused loss of consciousness. Lawrence was convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, auto theft, and petty theft.

During the penalty phase, Lawrence presented testimony of a brother, a psychologist, and a psychiatrist. The court followed the jury’s nine-to-three vote and imposed a sentence of death based on three aggravating circumstances, no statutory mitigating circumstances, and five nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. Lawrence also was sentenced to concurrent five-year terms of imprisonment on the conspiracy and auto theft charges and time served on the petty theft charge. (Brenda was tried separately and sentenced to life imprisonment for her role in the crimes.) Lawrence raises seven issues on appeal.

Lawrence first claims that his death sentence is disproportionate to other death penalty eases. We disagree. Three strong aggravating circumstances are arrayed against five nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. We have upheld the death penalty in comparable cases. See, e.cj., Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 637 (Fla.1995) (death sentence upheld where three aggravating circumstances were arrayed against fifteen nonstatutory mitigating circumstances), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1550, 134 L.Ed.2d 653 (1996); Johnson v.

State, 660 So.2d 648 (Fla.1995) (same), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 1550, 134 L.Ed.2d 653 (1996); Finney v. State, 660 So.2d 674 (Fla.1995) (death sentence upheld where three aggravating circumstances were arrayed against five nonstatutory mitigating circumstances), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 823, 133 L.Ed.2d 766 (1996). Further, this was an extraordinarily brutal crime. We find the death sentence proportionate. Lawrence next claims that the murder was not committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner. We disagree.

The record contains competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding of heightened premeditation. Lawrence and Brenda conversed with each other and then told Rachel and Kimberly to go into Kimberly’s bedroom. The adults later entered the room and told the girls that they “were going to knock off Mike.” Lawrence told them to stay in the bedroom and not to come out no matter what they heard. Lawrence and Brenda removed a metal pipe and baseball bat from the bedroom, and the girls then heard pounding noises from the living room and Finken pleading.

Lawrence beat Finken with the pipe until it bent and then beat him with the bat. Brenda came back into the bedroom and said that they could not “knock Mike off for nothing.” Finken was still alive when the girls went into the living room. Brenda told Kimberly and Rachel to go get Chris Wetherbee and when they returned, a mop handle was protruding from Finken’s throat. The mop was not among the original weapons. We find no error. Lawrence argues that the killing was not heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC). We disagree. Competent substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding.

This was a massive beating, and although defensive wounds could not be detected, the medical examiner explained that any such wounds would have been obscured by the burned condition of Finken’s body. The girls heard Finken pleading for his life, and he was alive when the mop handle was shoved down his throat. We have consistently upheld HAC in beating deaths. See, e.g., Bogle v.State, 655 So.2d 1103 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 483, 133 L.Ed.2d 410 (1995); Whitton v. State, 649 So.2d 861 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 106, 133 L.Ed.2d 59 (1995); Colina v.

State, 634 So.2d 1077 (Fla.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 934, 115 S.Ct. 330, 130 L.Ed.2d 289 (1994). We find no error. As his last point, Lawrence claims that the court erred in fading to find statutory mitigating circumstances and in rejecting the disparate treatment of Brenda (she was sentenced to life) as a mitigating circumstance. We disagree. The trial court’s sentencing order is sound. It shows that the trial court considered all the proposed mitigating circumstances, found some as established and others not. Competent substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings. See Campbell v.

State, 571 So.2d 415 (Fla.1990). We find no error. Based on the foregoing, we find that the conviction for first-degree murder is adequately supported in the record and the sentence of death is proportionate. We affirm the convictions and sentences. It is so ordered. OVERTON, GRIMES, HARDING and WELLS, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which KOGAN, C.J., concurs. .

The court found that the murder had been committed while Lawrence was under sentence of imprisonment; that the murder was heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC); and that the murder was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner (CCP). .

The court found that Lawrence cooperated with police; Lawrence had a learning disability and low IQ; Lawrence had a deprived childhood; Lawrence was under the influence of alco-hoi at the time of the crimes; and Lawrence does not have a violent history. .Lawrence claims that the court erred in the following matters: 1) proportionality; 2) finding CCP; 3) instructing on CCP; 4) finding HAC; 5) instructing on HAC; 6) failing to inform the jury that it could recommend life even if the mitigating circumstances did not outweigh the aggravating circumstances; 7) failing to find all possible mitigation. .

Issues 3, 5, and 6 were not preserved.