Florida Supreme Court affirms Steven Lorenzo's death sentences
This morning, as part of its regular release of opinions, the Florida Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion affirming Steven Lorenzo’s convictions and sentences of death on direct appeal.
This morning, as part of its regular release of opinions, the Florida Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion affirming Steven Lorenzo’s convictions and sentences of death on direct appeal.
In 2016, Lorenzo was indicted for two counts of first-degree murder for killing J.G. and M.W. in December 2003. At the time he was indicted, Lorenzo “was serving a series of lengthy federal prison sentences for multiple counts of distribution of gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) with the intent to commit a crime of violence, and one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute GHB with the intent to commit crimes of violence. J.G. and M.W. were among the several victims of those crimes.”
In late 2022, Lorenzo (pro se) waived his right to a jury trial in both the guilt- and penalty-phase. On December 6, 2022, Lorenzo pled guilty to both counts of first-degree murder.
The penalty phase occurred on February 6-7, 2023, and Lorenzo continued pro se. Lorenzo introduced two exhibits into evidence but waived his right to present mitigation. He also waived closing argument.
On February 20, 2023, the trial court held a Spencer hearing. Lorenzo did not present any additional mitigation evidence and stated that he wanted the death penalty. On February 24, 2023, the trial court held the final sentencing hearing, where Lorenzo again stated he wanted the death penalty.
The trial court sentenced Lorenzo to death on both counts, finding the following aggravating factors were proven beyond a reasonable doubt and assigned each the noted weight:
Lorenzo was previously convicted of another capital felony or a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person (great weight).
The capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel (great weight).
The capital felony was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification (great weight).
The capital felony was committed while Lorenzo was engaged in the commission of, or the attempt to, commit sexual battery or kidnapping (great weight).
The court found that several mitigating circumstances were not proven by the greater weight of the evidence. The mitigating circumstances the court did find are as follows:
As a child, Lorenzo had a close relationship with his siblings and his mother (slight weight).
Lorenzo’s mother was an alcoholic (slight weight).
Lorenzo was a habitual drug user (moderate weight).
Lorenzo received an electrical degree and maintained employment in that field (slight weight).
Lorenzo was part of a tight-knit neighborhood and was a good neighbor (slight weight).
Lorenzo has been a productive, model inmate while incarcerated (slight weight).
A video of the sentencing hearing can be found here.
On direct appeal, Lorenzo raised two issues: “(1) whether the trial court erred in permitting him to represent himself during the proceedings, and (2) whether the trial court erred in considering a mitigation report prepared and submitted by standby counsel in 2020.”
The Court held OA in June 2024, as TFDP covered here.
Today, the Court issued a 23-page pre curiam opinion affirming Lorenzo’s convictions and death sentences.
On the first issue, the Court says Lorenzo’s argument “is without merit.” The Court’s conclusion on this claim is summarized in the paragraphs below:
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Lorenzo was competent to represent himself. Indeed, the record indicates that Lorenzo understood the nature of the proceedings and that he was actively and intelligently involved throughout the proceedings.
. . . .
Moreover, the record is replete with evidence that Lorenzo was adept at representing himself and that he fully understood the nature of the proceedings against him. Lorenzo consistently made legal arguments that reflected his understanding of the proceedings, and he filed numerous pro se pleadings, such as his handwritten 2023 mitigation notice that well exceeded 100 pages. Lorenzo also ably conducted himself as a pro se advocate in court, lodging coherent objections and cross-examining witnesses. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Lorenzo was competent to represent himself.
On Lorenzo’s second argument, the Court concluded that the “trial court did not err” and, if it did, “any error would have been harmless.” The Court reasoned:
While it is true that Lorenzo did not present witnesses during the penalty phase, this is not a case involving a waiver of mitigation. Not only did Lorenzo retain his right to have the trial court consider evidence in mitigation, he was also actively involved in its development—including the submission of his own written defense exhibits consisting of detailed mitigation arguments.
Thus, in addition to the transcript of Lorenzo’s federal sentencing hearing, Lorenzo’s 2021 mitigation notice, the PSI, and Lorenzo’s 2023 mitigation notice, the trial court properly considered standby counsel’s report, which was “submitted on [Lorenzo’s] behalf and at his request” and “[a]fter [standby counsel] spen[t] a significant amount of time with” Lorenzo.
Further, while not raised by Lorenzo, the Court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence underlying Lorenzo’s convictions. The Court determined “Lorenzo’s plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered.” Justice Labarga concurred in result, reiterating his disagreement with the Court’s abandonment of its “decades-long practice of conducting comparative proportionality review” on direct appeal.
The facts show he was a sadistic and a murderer and deserves the harshest punishment available.