source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM. CANADY, J.,

license: Public Domain

text:
    Roderick Michael ORME, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. SC08-182.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Nov. 19, 2009.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 8, 2010.

      Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and David A. Davis, Assistant Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, FL, for Appellant.
    Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Meredith Charbula, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Roderick Michael Orme appeals an order of the trial court sentencing him to death following resentencing. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm the death sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

We summarized the facts of this case on Orme’s previous direct appeal as follows:

Roderick Michael Orme had an extensive history of substance abuse for which he previously had sought treatment at a recovery center in Panama City. On the morning of March 4, 1992, Orme suddenly appeared at the center again, despite a lapse of about a year since his prior treatment. He was disoriented and unable to respond to questions, but he did manage to write a message. It was “LEE’S MOT RM15.” While a breathalyzer returned negative results, Orme’s blood tested positive for cocaine and he was showing signs of acute cocaine withdrawal. He was cold, his face was flushed, and he was exhibiting symptoms like delirium tremens. An attending physician placed Orme in intensive care for thirty hours. Illegal barbiturates were found in Orme’s possession.
Lee’s Motel was located only a few blocks from the recovery center. Someone at the center telephoned the motel and said that a man who sounded hysterical had said to check room 15. The owner did so and found the body of a woman who had been badly beaten.
Semen was found in the victim’s orifices, but DNA testing could not identify a DNA match. One sample taken from the victim’s panties, however, held material that matched the pattern of Orme’s DNA. Orme’s underpants also had a mixed blood stain matching both Orme and the victim’s genotype. Orme’s fingerprints were found in the motel i-oom, and his checkbook and identification card were found in the victim’s car, which was parked outside.
The cause of death was strangulation. There were extensive bruising and hemorrhaging on the face, skull, chest, arms, left leg, and abdomen, indicating a severe beating. The abdominal hemorrhaging extended completely through the body to the back and involved the right kidney. Jewelry the victim always wore was missing and was never found. Police later identified the body as that of Lisa Redd, a nurse.
Orme acknowledged that he had summoned Redd to his motel room the day she was killed because he was having a “bad high” after free-basing cocaine. Orme and Redd had known each other for some time, and Orme called her because she was a nurse.
On March 4,1992, Orme told police he had last seen Redd twenty minutes after she arrived at his motel. Orme said she had knocked a crack pipe from his hands, apparently resulting in the loss of his drugs. He left to go partying soon thereafter. In this statement, he also said that this was the first time he had abused cocaine since 1990 and that he did not remember being at the addiction recovery center.
The following day Orme gave a lengthier statement to police. In this one, he said that Redd had arrived at his motel room between 9 and 10 p.m. She slapped his crack pipe out of his hands and swept several pieces of crack into the toilet. Orme said he then took the victim’s purse, which contained her car keys, and drove away in her car. Orme said he left and returned several times and that it was still dark when he realized something was wrong with Redd. The last time he returned, however, he could not enter because he had left the motel key inside the room.
Orme was arrested on March 6, 1992, after his release from the hospital. On March 26, 1992, he was charged by indictment with premeditated or felony murder, robbery, and sexual battery.
At trial, Orme testified that Redd had arrived at his motel room at 7, 8, or possibly 8:30 p.m. He again said he returned to the motel room at some point. At this time he realized Redd’s body was cold and that something was wrong. But he said the next thing he remembered was being in the hospital.
Robert Pegg, a cab driver, testified at trial that he had picked up Orme at Lee’s Motel around 8 p.m.
A man who lived across from the motel, Joseph Lee, also testified. He said that he generally kept track of what was happening at the motel and had first noticed the victim’s automobile there around 9:30 or 10 p.m. Lee said he saw Orme leave and return several times. Before going to bed around 2 a.m., Lee said he saw Orme leave in the victim’s car once more.
Another witness, Ann Thicklin, saw someone slowly drive the victim’s car into Lee’s Motel around 6:15 a.m.
The jury convicted Orme on all counts and recommended death by a vote of seven to five. The defense waived the mitigator of no prior criminal history and asked for the jury to be instructed on the age mitigator, the two statutory mental mitigators (substantial impairment and extreme emotional disturbance), and the catch-all mitigator. The state asked for three instructions: murder committed in the course of a sexual battery; heinous, atrocious, or cruel; and pecuniary gain.
Shortly before sentencing, the defense asked the court to consider the “no significant prior criminal history” factor based on the presentence investigation (“PSI”) and penalty-phase testimony. The defense stated that it had waived the factor to prevent the State from introducing a rebuttal witness about an alleged prior sexual assault committed by Orme.
The trial court stated that it had considered this motion. Shortly thereafter the judge sentenced Orme to death, finding all three aggravators argued by the State. In mitigation, the trial court found both statutory mental mitigators and gave them “some weight,” but concluded they did not outweigh the case for aggravation. The Court rejected the other factors argued by Orme: his age (30), his love for his family, an unstable childhood, potential for rehabilitation, and good conduct while awaiting trial.

Orme v. State, 677 So.2d 258, 260-62 (Fla.1996). On direct appeal, Orme raised eight issues. This Court affirmed Orme’s conviction of first-degree murder and the sentence of death. Id. Orme filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. That Court denied review on January 13, 1997. Orme v. Florida, 519 U.S. 1079, 117 S.Ct. 742, 136 L.Ed.2d 680 (1997).

Subsequently, Orme filed an amended motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851, raising twenty-five claims. After an evidentiary hearing on four claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the trial court denied relief. Orme appealed the denial of postconviction relief to this Court, raising three claims. He also petitioned the Court for a writ of habeas corpus, raising eight claims. See Orme v. State, 896 So.2d 725 (Fla.2005). This Court found defense counsel ineffective for failing to further investigate Orme’s diagnosis of bipolar disorder with respect to the penalty phase. As a result, a new penalty phase was ordered. Id.

In May 2007, a new penalty phase was conducted before a new jury, but before the original trial judge. By a vote of eleven to one, the new jury recommended a death sentence. The trial court followed the jury’s recommendation and sentenced Orme to death. The trial court found the following three statutory aggravating factors: (1) the capital felony was committed for pecuniary gain; (2) the capital felony was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit a sexual battery; and (3) the capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. The trial court also found three statutory mitigators: (1) the defendant had no significant criminal history (little weight); (2) the capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance (little weight); and (3) the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was substantially impaired (little weight). The trial court also found that the following mitigation was either irrelevant to the murder or did not exist and, as a result, gave them no weight: (1) the age of the defendant; (2) a bipolar disorder contributed significantly to the defendant’s substance abuse; (3) the defendant had a difficult childhood; (4) the defendant is a model prisoner; (5) the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation; and (6) the defendant tried to get the victim help.

On appeal, Orme presents nine claims. In addition to the claims asserted by Orme, the Court must also review the proportionality of the death sentence.

ANALYSIS

Consideration of Remorse as a Mitigator

Orme contends that the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to challenge for cause prospective jurors who could not consider remorse as a mitigator. During voir dire, defense counsel asked one of the prospective jurors whether evidence of Orme’s remorse could be significant in considering the case. The prosecutor objected. At first, the trial court sustained the objection and held that such a question about remorse was not appropriate during voir dire. However, after both the prosecutor and the trial judge acknowledged that remorse could be considered as a mitigator in sentencing, the trial judge held that defense counsel could inquire into remorse, but could not ask the jury what weight they would give it. However, in doing so, the trial judge also ruled that if a juror could not consider remorse as mitigating, it could only be a basis for a peremptory challenge, not a challenge for cause.

We agree with Orme that the trial court erred in holding that a juror’s refusal to consider remorse as a mitigator could only be a basis for a peremptory challenge. However, we find that the claim is not preserved for appeal because defense counsel failed to question any of the prospective jurors about their consideration of remorse as mitigation for the remainder of voir dire after the trial court ruled on the issue. To preserve the claim for appeal, counsel had to question the prospective jurors about whether they could consider remorse as a mitigator and then attempt to challenge the juror for cause if the juror answered that he or she could not consider remorse as a mitigator. Therefore, relief is not warranted on this claim.

Orme also asserts that the trial court erred in failing to consider Orme’s remorse as a mitigator in its sentencing order. This Court has consistently held that the trial court must expressly evaluate in its written order each mitigating circumstance proposed by the defendant to determine whether it is supported by the evidence. Griffin v. State, 820 So.2d 906, 913 (Fla.2002) (quoting Campbell v. State, 571 So.2d 415 (Fla.1990)). However, “a defendant must raise a proposed nonstatu-tory mitigating circumstance before the trial court in order to challenge on appeal the trial court’s decision about that non-statutory mitigating factor.” Davis v. State, 2 So.3d 952, 962 (Fla.2008). In the instant case, Orme filed a supplemental sentencing memorandum after the Spencer hearing in which he requested the trial court to consider remorse as a mitigator. In that memorandum, Orme argued that he expressed his genuine remorse for his actions at the Spencer hearing and accepted responsibility for the crime. We agree with Orme that the trial court failed to expressly evaluate remorse in its sentencing order even though Orme proposed remorse as a mitigating circumstance and expressed his remorse at the Spencer hearing. However, we hold that any error on the trial court’s part in failing to consider remorse as a mitigating circumstance constitutes harmless error. The trial court found three aggravators: (1) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC); (2) commission during a sexual battery; and (3) commission for pecuniary gain. The mitigation in the case was relatively weak. Therefore, even if the nonstatutory mitigator of remorse had been considered, the mitigating evidence would not have outweighed the aggrava-tors. See Singleton v. State, 783 So.2d 970, 977 (Fla.2001) (holding that trial court’s error in failing to address nonstatu-tory mitigation was harmless because the mitigators would not outweigh the aggravation in the case); see also Bates v. State, 750 So.2d 6 (Fla.1999).

Inquiry of Prospective Jurors — Mercy

Orme contends that the trial court erred in refusing to allow Orme to inquire of prospective jurors whether they could consider recommending a life sentence as a matter of mercy even if the aggravators outweighed the mitigation. The State argues that the trial court did not commit error because although the trial court initially denied defense counsel the opportunity to question prospective jurors about mercy during the first stage of jury selection, the trial court allowed counsel to question jurors about their willingness to consider mercy during the second stage of jury selection. We agree.

During the first stage of voir dire, defense counsel asked two prospective jurors whether the consideration of mercy had a part in the sentencing proceedings. After the first juror stated that he could not consider mercy, defense counsel challenged him for cause, which the trial court denied. Defense counsel then asked another juror the same question. The prosecutor objected, and the trial court sustained the objection and restricted defense counsel’s questions regarding mercy. Later during voir dire, defense counsel asked the trial court to reconsider the ruling restricting his ability to inquire about mercy. The trial court agreed to allow defense counsel to revisit the issue of mercy during the second stage of voir dire. After this ruling, although still during the first stage, defense counsel questioned three more prospective jurors about mercy without objection from the State, and then asked two different groups of prospective jurors during the second stage whether they could consider mercy. None of the prospective jurors indicated that they could not consider mercy in the case.

Orme concedes that the trial court allowed him to question prospective jurors about mercy and he did, in fact, ask the jurors about mercy. However, he argues that because the parties resumed their argument about the role of mei*cy during the second stage of jury selection, he was never able to raise the issue of mercy afterwards due to the trial court’s ruling. The record demonstrates that after defense counsel asked the last set of fourteen jurors about mercy, the parties resumed their argument about the role of mercy. The trial court ended the argument by ruling that the prosecutor could not bring up the issue of mercy unless defense counsel raised the issue. Orme now argues that he was never able to raise the issue of mercy after this decision because he did not want the State to make improper comments about the governor being the only one who could exercise mercy. However, we find the issue is not preserved for appeal because after the trial court’s decision, Orme did not attempt to question the jurors about mercy for the rest of voir dire. Accordingly, relief is not warranted.

The more troubling issue is the prosecutor’s comments during voir dire on how the trial judge could not consider mercy in his decision and the governor was the only person who could exercise mercy by way of a clemency hearing. We find that these statements by the prosecutor were improper and misleading to the jury. Thus, the trial court erred in overruling defense counsel’s objection to the prosecutor’s statements. However, we hold that the statements constitute harmless error because none of the prospective jurors indicated they could not consider mercy, the jury recommended a death sentence by a vote of eleven to one, and the trial court found the three aggravators outweighed the relatively weak mitigation. Accordingly, relief is not warranted.

Refusal to Dismiss Venire

Orme argues that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the venire after one prospective juror indicated he was opposed to a life sentence without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years because Orme had been convicted fifteen years ago. We deny relief because the trial court properly instructed the jury on this matter.

During voir dire, one of the prospective jurors expressed his concern that parole was a possibility after twenty-five years because Orme committed the crime fifteen years ago. Defense counsel then moved to strike the venire panel, arguing that the prospective juror poisoned the entire pool by stating that Orme had been convicted fifteen years ago. The State then suggested that the trial court could remedy the situation by giving a special instruction to explain the sentence of life without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years according to this Court’s decision in Green v. State, 907 So.2d 489 (Fla.2005). The trial court then denied the motion, but read the agreed-to instruction to the jury.

The trial court’s decision on whether to dismiss a venire is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Hernandez v. State, 4 So.3d 642 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 160, 175 L.Ed.2d 101 (2009). Also, “[i]n order for the statement of one venire member to taint the panel, the venire member must mention facts that would not otherwise be presented to the jury.” Johnson v. State, 903 So.2d 888, 897 (Fla.2005). In the instant case, the prospective juror did not mention a fact that would not otherwise be presented to the jury. The fact that Orme had committed the crime in 1992 was a fact presented to every prospective juror in the State’s brief explanation of the case during voir dire. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defense’s motion to dismiss the venire.

Orme further argues that although the trial court provided a jury instruction to clarify that there was no guarantee that Orme would be paroled after twenty-five years if given a life sentence without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years, this instruction should have been given at the beginning of voir dire. However, the trial court followed the procedure used by the trial court and affirmed by this Court in Green. The trial court used the same language used by the trial court in Green and explained to the jury that it was not guaranteed that the defendant would be granted parole after twenty-five years. Such an instruction actually favored Orme because it “served to remind any jurors leaning towards the death penalty based on the perception that [Orme] could be paroled in the near future due to the credit for time served that [Orme] could stay in jail for a longer period of time and that there was no guarantee that he would in fact be paroled.” Id. at 498-99. Even though this instruction was not provided at the beginning of voir dire, it still remedied and clarified the concern that several of the prospective jurors had with the sentencing option of life without the possibility of parole for twenty-five yeai's. See Thompson v. State, 619 So.2d 261 (Fla.1993) (finding that the trial court did not commit error in failing to strike the venire after it became apparent that one of the jurors was concerned that the defendant could be released within twelve years if given a life sentence).

We find that the trial court did not err in failing to strike the venire.

Waiver of Right to Sentencing Option of Life in Prison 'without Possibility of Parole for Twenty-five Years

Orme contends that the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to waive his right to the sentencing option of life in prison without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years in favor of a harsher punishment of life in prison without the possibility of parole. In making this argument, Orme is essentially urging the Court to recede from its majority decision in Bates v. State, 750 So.2d 6 (Fla.1999), and adopt the dissenting opinion in Bates. We decline to do so.

Before May 25, 1994, defendants convicted of capital murder faced two sentencing options: death or life in prison without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years. § 775.082(1), Fla. Stat. (1993). However, in 1994, the Legislature enacted chapter 94-228, Laws of Florida, section 1, which amended the statute to replace the option of life in prison without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years with life in prison without eligibility for parole. § 775.082(1), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994). This amendment applies to offenses committed on or after May 25, 1994. See In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 678 So.2d 1224, 1224 n. 1 (Fla.1996). Because Orme committed the crime in 1992, his two sentencing options were death or life in prison without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years. However, Orme wished to waive his right to the sentencing option of life in prison without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years in favor of a harsher punishment of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

In Bates, the defendant raised a similar issue-whether the trial court’s refusal to instruct the sentencing jury that life without the possibility of parole was a sentencing alternative to death denied him due process and a fundamentally fair capital sentencing proceeding. 750 So.2d at 9. This Court applied the rules of statutory construction and stated that “without clear legislative intent to the contrary, a law is presumed to apply prospectively.” Id. at 10. The Court then applied that rule to section 775.082(1), Florida Statutes (1995), and found that there was “no unequivocal language that the Legislature intended this amendment [to section 775.082(1) ] to apply retroactively.” Id.

As we stated in Bates, under the rules of statutory construction, there must be a clear expression of intended retrospective application. See State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321 (Fla.1983). In the instant matter, the Legislature did not, by clear and unequivocal language, express its intent for section 775.082(1), Florida Statutes (1995), to apply retroactively. Additionally, in In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, we recognized that the 1994 amendment applied to offenses committed on or after May 25, 1994. As a result, Orme is not eligible to receive a life sentence without the possibility of parole. See Hudson v. State, 708 So.2d 256 (Fla.1998) (the 1994 amendment to section 775.082(1) cannot be applied retroactively); Craig v. State, 685 So.2d 1224, 1230 n. 12 (Fla.1996) (because the defendant committed his crime in 1981, he was not eligible to receive a life sentence without the possibility of parole); Gore v. State, 706 So.2d 1328 (Fla.1997).

Because Orme was not eligible to receive the sentencing option of a life sentence without the possibility of parole and because there is no reason for us to recede from precedent on this issue, relief is denied on this claim.

Mitigation

In this claim, Orme argues that the trial court erred by failing to give weight to Orme’s difficult childhood, to the fact that Orme was a model prisoner, to Orme’s potential for rehabilitation, and to Orme’s attempt to get the victim help.

In Fennie v. State, 855 So.2d 597, 608 (Fla.2003), we reiterated the procedural requirements that a trial court must follow in its sentencing order in a capital case. A trial judge must

(1) expressly evaluate in his or her written order each mitigating circumstance proposed by the defendant to determine whether it is supported by the evidence and whether, in the case of nonstatutory factors, it is truly of a mitigating nature; (2) assign a weight to each aggravating factor and mitigating factor properly established; (3) weigh the established aggravating circumstances against the established mitigating circumstances; and (4) provide a detailed explanation of the result of the weighing process.

With regard to mitigating circumstances, “A trial court may reject a claim that a mitigating circumstance has been proven provided that the record contains competent, substantial evidence to support the rejection.” Hurst v. State, 819 So.2d 689, 697 (Fla.2002); see also Mansfield v. State, 758 So.2d 636, 646 (Fla.2000). Moreover, in Trease v. State, 768 So.2d 1050, 1055 (Fla.2000), we receded from our decision in Campbell v. State, 571 So.2d 415, 420 (Fla.1990), and held that trial courts may assign no weight to a mitigating factor. In doing so, we recognized that a trial judge “may not preclude from consideration any evidence regarding a mitigating circumstance that is proffered by a defendant in order to receive a sentence of less than death.” However, there are circumstances where although a mitigator may be relevant and must be considered by the trial judge because it is generally recognized as a mitigator, the judge “may determine in the particular case at hand that it is entitled to no weight for additional reasons or circumstances unique to that case.” Trease, 768 So.2d at 1055.

In the instant case, the trial judge found that having a difficult childhood was not relevant to the murder and assigned it no weight. In finding that the mitigator had no relevance to the murder, the trial judge stated the following in its sentencing order: “The defendant came from a divorced family and he was not raised by his biological mother, however, the defendant was raised by a loving and caring stepmother.” We find that although the trial court’s treatment of this mitigator was improper, the error was harmless given the severity of the three aggravators in the case and other relatively weak mitigation.

Several defense witnesses testified concerning Orme’s father’s violent and abusive behavior. They testified that Orme’s father was a violent man who abused people verbally, demeaned them, and belittled them, especially Orme, Orme’s stepbrother, Eric, and Orme’s biological mother, Linda Henley. Orme’s stepmother, Carol Orme, specifically testified that she believed Orme’s father suffered from bipolar disease and depression and that when he was depressed, he was a “fighter.” According to Carol, his father was diagnosed with depression and anxiety and had medicine prescribed. Linda testified that when she divorced Orme’s father, the father convinced her to let him have custody of Orme, but then he made it very difficult for her to visit Orme. When she found out that Orme’s father was going to move out of state and take Orme with him, she went to the school and took him out. Six months later, Orme’s father went to the school and grabbed him and when the teacher tried to stop him, he punched her in the mouth and took off with Orme. After that incident, Linda did not see Orme for ten years. When they reunited ten years later, Orme explained to Linda that he thought she had stopped loving him because his father told him that she did not want him and that she had sold him for a new car.

Thus, the record demonstrates that there was an abundance of evidence about Orme’s father’s violent temper and verbal abuse as well as his diagnosis for depression and anxiety. However, the trial court failed to discuss any of this evidence in its sentencing order. The trial court’s statement that Orme’s parents were divorced but that he had a loving stepmother was an insufficient analysis of this mitigator. Even though the trial court erred in its treatment of this mitigator, we find the error harmless. See Hurst, 819 So.2d at 699. The trial court found three significant aggravators—HAC, pecuniary gain, and commission during a sexual battery— compared to relatively weak mitigation. Even if we consider the difficult childhood with the other mitigation, it does not change the balance of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Orme also challenges the trial court’s decision that the model prisoner mitigator was not relevant to the murder and to give it no weight. As to this miti-gator, the trial court found: “The defendant has exhibited model behavior while in prison. He only has minor disciplinary reports, however, one including possession of marijuana.”

During the resentencing proceeding, only one witness, a retired Florida prison warden, provided testimony as to Orme’s “model prisoner” behavior. He testified that Orme had been an absolutely model prisoner compared to other prisoners across the board and that his disciplinary issues were very low and minor. However, he also admitted that he never met Orme or observed him in prison; he only reviewed documents involving Orme’s time in prison. He further admitted that Orme did have two disciplinary reports, one involving possession of marijuana and another involving Orme throwing a tray of food on the floor because the food was not cooked properly. The possession of marijuana in prison is significant because he was in maximum custody, had a history of substance abuse problems, and had been in and out of detox because of the abuse. Under these circumstances, we find no error in the trial court’s decision regarding this mitigating factor.

The trial court also found that the potential for rehabilitation mitigator was not applicable. As the court noted, Orme was addicted to illegal drugs for over ten years and had received in-patient treatment for the addiction, but he continued to use drugs and the attempt at rehabilitation did not stop the murder. Moreover, we note that the defense failed to present any evidence to demonstrate that Orme had potential for rehabilitation. Family members testified that Orme began using drugs when he entered college and had been addicted since then. He was admitted to a detox center to get treated for the addiction, but on the night of the murder, Orme still chose to buy and abuse cocaine. Therefore, the trial court did not err in rejecting this mitigating circumstance.

Orme’s final contention under this claim is that the trial court erred in rejecting the “trying to get victim help” mitigator. To support this mitigator, the defense provided the testimony of an employee at Reliance House, the detox center where Orme showed up on the morning after the murder. The employee testified that when Orme walked in that morning, he was unable to speak, but wrote on a piece of paper “Lee’s Mot Rm 15.” This evidence of writing a note indicating where Redd was is not enough to prove that Orme tried to get Redd help. Moreover, the mitigator is contravened by other evidence in the record that demonstrates that Orme did not try to help Redd until many hours after he left her dead in the motel room, took her car, and went riding around town with another woman. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision rejecting this as a mitigating circumstance.

Pecuniary Gain Aggravator

Orme contends that the trial court erred in finding the pecuniary gain aggra-vator because the taking of Redd’s property was not an integral part of the murder. To establish the pecuniary gain aggravator, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that “the murder was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to obtain money, property, or other financial gain.” Green v. State, 907 So.2d 489, 500 (Fla.2005) (quoting Finney v. State, 660 So.2d 674, 680 (Fla.1995)). In its sentencing order, the trial court found that the pecuniary gain aggravator had been established based on evidence that demonstrated that Orme unlawfully took Redd’s purse, car, keys, money, necklace, and watch by force, violence, assault or putting her in fear.

The record demonstrates that the trial court’s finding of the pecuniary gain aggravator is supported by competent, substantial evidence. Willacy v. State, 696 So.2d 693 (Fla.1997) (recognizing that on appeal, this Court’s task is to review the record to determine whether the trial court applied the right rule of law for each aggravator and to determine whether competent, substantial evidence supports its finding). The State presented evidence to show that Orme did not have money left when he asked Redd to come to the motel to medically assist him. While Redd was in the motel room attempting to assist Orme, she threw Orme’s cocaine into the toilet at which point Orme got angry and proceeded to brutally beat, rape, and murder Redd. Afterwards, he left the room with Redd’s purse and keys, jumped into her car, and rode around for the rest of the night. At some point during the night, Orme picked up another woman and partied with her all night in Redd’s car. Orme did not return Redd’s car to the motel until the morning. Redd’s purse and the jewelry she always wore were never found after the murder. Because Orme had been using drugs the entire day of the murder and Redd had thrown away Orme’s unused cocaine, Orme’s motivation to kill Redd was, at least in part, due to his desire to obtain her money, jewelry, and car so he could ride around town, purchase more drugs, and party with the another woman all night. Moreover, the trial court convicted Orme of robbery, which was affirmed by this Court on direct appeal. The robbery conviction coupled with the evidence presented by the State that Orme took Redd’s purse and keys to joyride in her car all night after he murdered her provides competent, substantial evidence to affirm the trial court’s finding of the pecuniary gain aggravator.

Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding the pecuniary gain aggravator.

HAC Aggravator

Orme contends that the trial court erred in finding the murder to have been committed in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC) manner because the evidence did not show that he enjoyed the suffering of his victim. This Court has consistently held that the HAC aggravator does not necessarily focus on the intent and motivation of the defendant, but instead on the “means and manner in which death is inflicted and the immediate circumstances surrounding the death.” Brown v. State, 721 So.2d 274, 277 (Fla.1998); see also Stephens v. State, 975 So.2d 405 (Fla.2007). The HAC aggrava tor is proper “only in torturous murders— those that evince extreme and outrageous depravity as exemplified either by the desire to inflict a high degree of pain or utter indifference to or enjoyment of the suffering of another.” Guzman v. State, 721 So.2d 1155, 1159 (Fla.2002); see also Cheshire v. State, 568 So.2d 908 (Fla.1990). The crime must be “conscienceless or pitiless and unnecessarily torturous to the victim.” Guzman, 721 So.2d at 1159 (citing Richardson v. State, 604 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1992)).

We find that the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that this murder was conscienceless and pitiless and was unnecessarily tortuous to Redd, both physically and emotionally. Dr. James Laurid-son, a forensic pathologist, testified that Redd had significant bruising all over her body, including her face, neck, arms, legs, and abdominal area, which came from blunt force trauma. He explained that the blunt trauma was of such force that it tore the blood vessels under the skin, which bled out and caused discoloration. The blunt force injury on the abdomen was deep enough to injure the tissue surrounding the kidney, causing a significant amount of hemorrhaging. Dr. Lauridson further testified that there was ecchymosis (bleeding on the white of the eye) and petechiae (small pinpoint hemorrhages on eyelids), which are commonly seen in asphyxia deaths when there has been strangulation. There was also a significant amount of hemorrhaging at all levels of the neck including the back of the neck, which was consistent with someone being strangled from the front and back. Dr. Leroy Riddick, the forensic pathologist called by the defense, agreed that the cause of death was manual strangulation. He further stated that there was definitely an altercation and a struggle; Redd did not just sit there and get strangled. He also testified that by looking at the injuries, Orme delivered approximately twenty-four blows to Redd.

Evidence of Redd’s struggle indicates that Redd was aware of her impending death. See Belcher v. State, 851 So.2d 678 (Fla.2003) (finding that the HAC ag-gravator applied and noting that although the victim was probably only conscious for sometime between thirty seconds and a minute before her strangulation and drowning death, the evidence of a struggle between the victim and her attacker established that she was likely conscious at the outset of the strangling and was aware of her impending death). Moreover, because strangulation of a conscious victim involves foreknowledge and the extreme anxiety of impending death, death by strangulation constitutes prima facie evidence of HAC. See Bowles v. State, 804 So.2d 1173, 1178 (Fla.2001) (“Strangulation of a conscious murder victim evinces that the victim suffered through the extreme anxiety of impending death as well as the perpetrator’s utter indifference to such torture. Accordingly, this Court has consistently upheld the HAC aggravator in cases where a conscious victim was strangled.”); see also Mansfield v. State, 758 So.2d 636, 645 (Fla.2000).

The testimony elicited during the penalty phase regarding strangulation of Redd, her struggle, and the significant amount of bruising over her body provides competent, substantial evidence to support the finding of the HAC aggravator. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s finding of HAC.

Sexual Battery Aggravator

Orme asserts that the trial court erred in finding that the “murder was committed in the course of a sexual battery” aggravator applied. Orme concedes that he had sexual relations with Redd on the night she was murdered, but argues that the evidence failed to establish Redd’s lack of consent. In its sentencing order, the trial court concluded that Orme committed sexual battery upon Redd by oral, vaginal, and anal penetration without her consent and in the process used force or violence likely to cause personal injury to Redd.

We find that there is competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding of the sexual battery aggra-vator. Two investigators testified that Redd’s clothing was disheveled when she was found in the motel room, that is, her shirt was unsnapped and pulled up just below her breast; her pants were not fully up; her bra was twisted and above the breast; her panties were only on one leg. Also, a significant amount of blood was found in the backside of Redd’s panties and on the rectal, vaginal, and oral swabs performed on Redd. One of the medical examiners testified that the blood on Redd’s panties came from an injury to the lining of the rectum where there was hemorrhaging and abrasions. He testified that these injuries were consistent with unlubricated anal intercourse. He also emphasized that such a significant amount of blood would not be normal in everyday consensual anal intercourse. The testimony presented also reveals that there was a significant amount of bruising to Redd’s body, specifically her legs, arms, abdomen, and upper chest area. Additionally, Orme was convicted of sexual battery by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt, which we affirmed on direct appeal.

Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not err in finding the sexual battery aggravator. See Fitzpatrick v. State, 900 So.2d 495, 509 (Fla.2005) (rejecting the defendant’s contention that the sexual intercourse with the victim was consensual based on the evidence that the victim was found naked with her bloody undergarment wrapped around her waist near her breasts, her breasts were deep purple, and there was puffiness around her head, bruising on her arms, scratches covering her legs, and a cigarette burn on her leg).

Ring Violation

Orme raises the same Ring claim raised in his appeal of the denial of postconviction relief, but also recognizes that this Court has repeatedly rejected arguments that Ring has any application to Florida’s capital sentencing scheme. As we stated in Orme’s postconviction appeal and as Orme concedes, similar arguments have been addressed and rejected by this Court. Orme, 896 So.2d at 736-37; see also Fennie v. State, 855 So.2d 597, 607 n. 10 (Fla.2003); Doorbal v. State, 837 So.2d 940, 963 (Fla.2003). Moreover, Orme was convicted not only of first-degree murder, but also of two additional violent felonies: sexual battery and robbery. We have consistently found that Ring is satisfied when a defendant commits a murder in the course of an enumerated felony. See generally Parker v. State, 873 So.2d 270 (Fla.2004). Accordingly, relief is denied on this claim.

Proportionality Assessment

While not challenged by Orme, the proportionality of the death sentence is an issue that this court must review in every death penalty case. Beasley v. State, 774 So.2d 649, 673 (Fla.2000). “[T]o ensure uniformity in death penalty proceedings, ‘we make a comprehensive analysis in order to determine whether the crime falls within the category of both the most aggravated and the least mitigated of murders, thereby assuring uniformity in the application of the sentence.’ ” Floyd v. State, 913 So.2d 564, 578 (Fla.2005) (quoting Anderson v. State, 841 So.2d 390, 407-08 (Fla.2003)).

Orme was convicted of murder, robbery, and sexual battery. The trial court found three aggravators: (1) HAC; (2) the capital felony was committed for pecuniary gain; and (3) the capital felony was committed during the commission of a sexual battery. The court also found three statutory mitigators: (1) the defendant had no significant criminal history (little weight); (2) the capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance (little weight); and (3) the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was substantially impaired (little weight). Because we find that the trial court erred as to the difficult childhood mitigator, we also give proper consideration to that mitigator in the proportionality assessment.

We find that Orme’s sentence is proportional in relation to other death sentences that this Court has upheld. See Johnston v. State, 841 So.2d 349 (Fla.2002) (finding death sentence proportionate where defendant beat, raped, and strangled his victim and the trial court found four aggravators including the three that were found in the instant case, one statutory mitigator, and numerous nonstatutory mitigators); see also Bates v. State, 750 So.2d 6 (Fla.1999) (upholding death sentence where the Court found three aggravators, including that the murder was committed during a kidnapping and sexual battery, was committed for pecuniary gain, and was HAC, versus two statutory mitigators and several nonstatutory mitigators); Hauser v. State, 701 So.2d 329 (Fla.1997) (death sentence proportionate where victim was strangled and trial court found three ag-gravators of HAC, CCP, and pecuniary gain, balanced against one statutory miti-gator and four nonstatutory mitigators).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we affirm Orme’s sentence of death.

It is so ordered.

QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

CANADY, J., specially concurs with an opinion, in which POLSTON, J., concurs.

CANADY, J.,

specially concurring.

I concur in the affirmance of Orme’s death sentence. Except for the matters discussed below, I agree with the analysis in the per curiam opinion.

With respect to Orme’s claim that the trial court erred in refusing to permit a for-cause challenge to prospective jurors who refused to consider remorse as a mitigating factor, I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the claim was not preserved. I would reject the issue on that basis and refrain from reaching its merits.

With respect to the claim that the trial court failed to consider Orme’s remorse as a mitigator, I would reject the claim on the basis that it was not preserved. Orme never did anything to bring the supposed deficiency in the sentencing order to the attention of the trial court. Accordingly, the issue is unpreserved. See Blackwelder v. State, 851 So.2d 650, 652 (Fla.2003); Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 611 (Fla.2000).

POLSTON, J., concurs.

      .The following issues were raised: (1) the trial court should have directed a judgment of acquittal on grounds the case against him was circumstantial and the State had failed to disprove all reasonable hypotheses of innocence; (2) Orme's statements to officers should have been suppressed on grounds he was too intoxicated with drugs to knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to silence; (3) death is not a proportionate penalty because Orme's will was overborne by drug abuse, and because any fight between the victim and him was a "lover’s quarrel”; (4) Orme's mental state at the time of the murder was such that he could not form a "design” to inflict a high degree of suffering on the victim; (5) the trial court erred by failing to weigh in mitigation the fact that Orme had no significant prior criminal history; (6) the trial court erred in declining to give a special instruction that acts perpetrated on the victim after her death are not relevant to the aggravator of heinous, atrocious, or cruel; (7) the instruction on heinous, atrocious, or cruel violated the dictates of Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079, 112 S.Ct. 2926, 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992); and (8) Orme was incapable of forming the specific intent necessary for first-degree murder and this fact bars his death sentence under Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982).

      . Orme argued that (1) the trial court erred in denying his ineffective assistance of counsel claim for trial counsel's failure to present evidence of Orme’s diagnosis of bipolar disorder; (2) his death sentence is unconstitutional pursuant to Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), and its progeny; and (3) the general juty qualifications procedure in Bay County, where he was tried, was unconstitutional. Orme v. State, 896 So.2d 725 (Fla.2005).

      . Three of the claims Orme raised were: (1) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on appeal the fact that Orme was involuntarily absent from two bench conferences which he claims were critical stages of his trial; (2) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on appeal the claim that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct rendering the conviction and sentence fundamentally unfair; and (3) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on appeal the claim that the trial court erroneously allowed forty-three gruesome photographs to be shown to the juty. Orme raised five additional claims, all of which were found not to be properly raised in a habeas proceeding because they were either raised on direct appeal or in postconviction or should have been raised and were therefore procedurally barred. Orme v. State, 896 So.2d 725, 740 (Fla.2005).

      . Spencer v. State, 615 So.2d 688 (Fla.1993).

      . Immediately prior to the arguments about mercy, the prosecutor made comments to the prospective jurors about the governor being the only one that could grant mercy to the defendant.

      . In that case, during the penalty phase, the trial court instructed the jury that they had to recommend either death or life without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years. During deliberations, the jury asked the trial judge whether the life sentence without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years started when the crime was committed in 1987 or if it started on that day of deliberations. The trial court provided the jury with the following answer: "The defendant, if sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for 25 years, would be entitled to credit for all jail served [sic] against a life sentence. However, there is no guarantee that the defendant would be granted parole at or after 25 years." Green, 907 So.2d at 496. On appeal, the defendant contended that the trial court improperly responded to a question posed by the penalty phase jury during deliberations. With regard to the second part of the response, the Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion for two reasons. First, the trial court's answer was not detrimental and was actually favorable to the defendant. Also, the trial court did not impermissibly comment on a question of fact, but instead answered a question of law. Id. at 498-99.

      . After the trial court ruled that the proper instruction for the jury included a life sentence with eligibility for parole after twenty-five years, Orme requested that he be sentenced under the 1994 sentencing scheme. The trial court did not approve the request but stated that the issue could be revisited during trial. Subsequently, Orme filed a Motion to Include Life Without Eligibility for Parole on the Verdict Form which requested that the jury be informed of three sentencing options — life with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years, life without the possibility of parole, and death. The court denied the motion.

      . Although it appears that the trial court found this nonstatutory mitigator but assigned it no weight, the language of the court's order is ambiguous and could be construed as rejecting this mitigator. We remind trial courts that rejecting a mitigator because it is not supported by the evidence is not the equivalent of assigning the mitigator no weight. As we have stated previously, a trial court may find that a mitigator is supported by the record, but nonetheless assign the mitigator no weight. See id. Alternatively, if competent, substantial evidence supporting the mitigator does not exist, there is no need for the trial court to engage in a weighing process of that mitigator.

      . Similar to the "difficult childhood” miti-gator, the trial court's discussion of this miti-gator could be interpreted as either rejecting this mitigator or finding the mitigator and assigning it no weight.

      . Although the trial court stated that it gave this mitigator no weight, it appears that the court found that the mitigator was not supported by the record as it stated that "this [mitigating] circumstance does not exist.”

      . Again, the trial court gave this mitigator no weight but it appears that the mitigator was rejected by the court's language that "this [mitigating] circumstance does not exist.”


author: PARIENTE, J.

text:
    J.A.B., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. SC08-2326.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Jan. 7, 2010.

      James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Pamela H. Izakowitz, Assistant Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, FL, for Petitioner.
    Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, Robert J. Krauss, Bureau Chief, and Diana K. Bock, Assistant Attorneys General, Tampa, FL, for Respondent.
   PARIENTE, J.

This case is before the Court for review of the en banc decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in J.A.B. v. State, 993 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), addressing the issue of juvenile restitution. The Second District certified conflict with the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in J.A.M. v. State, 601 So.2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), on the issue of whether setting the commencement date for restitution must be conditioned on the juvenile obtaining employment. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

In receding from several of its own prior decisions, the Second District explained:

[W]e now hold that the trial court may set the restitution amount and payments in a reasonable amount based upon evidence regarding the earnings the juvenile may reasonably be expected to make and may set a commencement date for the payments so long as the court provides a reasonable amount of time for the juvenile to obtain employment.

J.A.B., 993 So.2d at 1151. Because this holding comports with the language and stated purpose of the applicable juvenile restitution statutes, we approve the opinion of the Second District in J.A.B. and disapprove JAM. to the extent that the First District has required that setting a commencement date for restitution be conditioned on the juvenile obtaining employment.

FACTS AND BACKGROUND

J.A.B. was adjudicated guilty of battery and placed on juvenile probation for one year. Id. The trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine restitution and held evi-dentiary hearings during which the victim testified that she had incurred hospital bills and other losses as a result of the battery. Id. Although J.A.B. was seventeen at the time she committed the battery, she was eighteen by the time of the evidentiary hearing. See id. J.A.B. testified she was unemployed and pregnant, she attended high school, and hoped to proceed to a two-year trade school. Id. Further, as set forth in the Second District’s opinion:

She planned to take six weeks off from her schooling after the baby was born. She had never held a job before, although she had applied unsuccessfully at three companies when she was approximately five months pregnant. She had no disability or health conditions that would prevent her from working once she had the baby. The court questioned the parties regarding the current minimum wage. The State responded that the federal minimum wage was $5.15 per hour, and the state minimum wage was $6.67.
J.A.B. was living with her expected baby’s grandmother (apparently the paternal grandmother) but received no support from the expected baby’s father. She was receiving government assistance in the form of $180 per month in cash assistance plus food stamps. She also had a cell phone with a bill of approximately $60 per month that was paid by her mother or her uncle.
Based upon this evidence, the trial court awarded restitution in the amount of $1479.09. Given that J.A.B.’s baby was due within two months, the court deferred any payment of restitution until July 1, 2007, approximately six weeks after J.A.B.’s due date. The court required J.A.B. to then pay restitution at the rate of $50 per month, reasoning that this amount could be paid given the resources available to J.A.B. even if J.A.B. worked only part time at minimum wage.

Id. at 1151-52 (footnote omitted). J.A.B. appealed the restitution order, not challenging the amount of restitution, but instead arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in setting the payment schedule because she could not afford the payments. Id. at 1152. The Second District disagreed. Id.

Taking into consideration the language of the juvenile restitution statute, the policies underlying the statute, and the wide discretion generally afforded to trial courts in awarding restitution, the Second District concluded that trial courts should be permitted to set a restitution payment schedule, even where the juvenile is unemployed. Id. at 1154. In reaching this conclusion, the Second District recognized that although a court can order a delinquent juvenile to pay restitution without a showing of present ability to pay, “the court must determine what the child may reasonably be expected to earn upon finding suitable employment and must base the restitution amount on those expected earnings.” Id. at 1152; see also § 985.231 (l)(a)(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005). Further, the Second District determined that there is nothing in section 985.231 that requires a trial court to condition the setting of a restitution payment schedule on the juvenile obtaining employment. J.A.B., 993 So.2d at 1153. The Second District also noted that an order requiring restitution only after a juvenile finds employment places the onus on the State to continually pursue a child who has not paid. Id. at 1154. The question of inability to pay despite reasonable efforts to do so would be an issue in any subsequent enforcement proceedings. Id. at 1151, 1154.

Finally, the Second District took note of the evidence supporting the trial court’s restitution order, including J.AB.’s age, the fact that J.A.B. did not suffer from any disability, her intent to return to school six weeks after having her child, her lack of significant living expenses, her receipt of government assistance, and her monthly cell phone bill, which was paid by a family member, in excess of the amount of restitution payments. Id. Based on this evidence, the district court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering its restitution order. Id.

In J.A.M., the conflict case, the juvenile appealed a condition of his community control requiring him to make restitution in the amount of $3800 to the victim at the rate of $200 per month commencing on a date certain. 601 So.2d at 278. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in failing to determine that he had the present ability to pay the ordered restitution at the amount required. Id. The First District noted that a trial court may order an unemployed or incarcerated child to pay restitution without a showing of present ability to pay and in doing so, “must only determine what the defendant may reasonably be expected to earn upon finding suitable employment and base the amount of restitution on those earnings.” Id. However, the First District concluded that even though the amount of restitution imposed did not appear to exceed the amount the juvenile could reasonably be expected to pay or make, the trial court erred in setting a date certain for commencement of the payment. Id. at 278-79. The case was remanded for the trial court to strike the date certain and substitute language providing that the payments were to commence upon the juvenile’s obtaining employment, which he was required to make all reasonable efforts to obtain. Id. at 279.

ANALYSIS

The certified conflict issue before this Court asks whether a trial court may set a restitution payment schedule for an unemployed juvenile or whether the trial court must condition payment of restitution upon the juvenile becoming employed. Because the subject of restitution is a creature of statute, resolving this question requires an analysis of the language of the statute to discern legislative intent. In analyzing this issue, we first set forth the applicable statutory provisions. We then review the language and stated purpose of the restitution statute to determine whether the Legislature intended to afford trial courts discretion in setting a restitution payment schedule even if the juvenile is currently unemployed.

Questions of statutory interpretation are subject to de novo review. Heart of Adoptions, Inc. v. J.A., 963 So.2d 189, 194 (Fla.2007). “As with any case of statutory construction, we begin with the ‘actual language in the statute.’ ” Id. at 198 (quoting Borden v. East-European Ins. Co., 921 So.2d 587, 595 (Fla.2006)). “This is because legislative intent is determined primarily from the statute’s text.” Id. (citing Maggio v. Fla. Dep’t of Labor & Employment Sec., 899 So.2d 1074, 1076-77 (Fla.2005)).

Chapter 985, Florida Statutes (2005), entitled “Delinquency; Interstate Compact on Juveniles,” was enacted in 1997 by the Florida Legislature. See ch. 97-238, Laws of Fla. The statute provides in part as follows: “When restitution is ordered by the court, the amount of restitution may not exceed an amount the child and the parent or guardian could reasonably be expected to pay or make.” § 985.231(l)(a)(l)(a) (2005) (emphasis added). Nearly identical language was contained in the juvenile restitution statute in existence at the time of J.A.M.’s offense. Likewise, section 985.437(2), Florida Statutes (2009), provides in pertinent part: “When restitution is ordered by the court, the amount of restitution may not exceed, an amount the child and, the parent or guardian covld reasonably be expected to pay or make.” (emphasis added).

The Legislature has also stated the purpose of chapter 985 in relevant part:

(c) To ensure the protection of society, by providing for a comprehensive standardized assessment of the child’s needs so that the most appropriate control, discipline, punishment, and treatment can be administered consistent with the seriousness of the act committed, the community’s long-term need for public safety, the prior record of the child, and the specific rehabilitation needs of the child, while also providing whenever possible restitution to the victim of the offense.

§ 985.01 (l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2005) (emphasis added); see also § 985.01(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2009) (same). To fulfill the goal of providing restitution to the victim “whenever possible,” the Legislature has set forth a clear procedure for trial courts to follow in ordering restitution from a minor.

Once a juvenile is adjudicated delinquent and if the trial court places the juvenile on probation, a probation program “must include a penalty component such as restitution in money or in kind.” § 985.231(l)(a)(l), Fla. Stat. (2005); see also § 985.435(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009). The court may order the child to “make restitution in money, through a promissory note cosigned by a child’s parent or guardian, or in kind for any damage or loss caused by the child’s offense in a reasonable amount or manner to be determined by the court.” § 985.231(l)(a)(6), Fla. Stat. (2005); see also § 985.437(2), Fla. Stat. (2009) (same).

The issue in this case is whether the statute prohibits setting a date certain for restitution payments to begin and, if not, whether the setting of a date certain is inconsistent with the statute’s requirement that the amount of restitution ordered is an amount that “the child and the parent or guardian could reasonably be expected to pay or make.” § 985.231(l)(a)(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005) (emphasis added); see also § 985.437(2), Fla. Stat. (2009).

We conclude that the statute does not prohibit setting a date certain for restitution payments to begin. Rather, the operative language of the statute— “reasonably expected to pay or make”— appears to contemplate that restitution will be set based on what a juvenile could be reasonably expected to pay upon finding employment, not on the juvenile’s current ability to pay. Thus, provided the ordered restitution amount does not exceed an amount that the child and the parent could reasonably be expected to pay or make, the trial court may order that the payments begin on a date certain — without regard to the juvenile’s present employment status.

The Legislature’s purpose in drafting the juvenile restitution statute, as specifically set forth in section 985.01(l)(c), also supports the conclusion of the Second District that trial courts may set a payment schedule regardless of the present employment status of the juvenile. The statute was crafted both to protect society in a manner consistent with the child’s needs and to provide restitution to the victim whenever possible. See § 985.01(l)(e). This purpose is best served by allowing the trial court discretion in setting the payment schedule. As noted by the Fourth District Court of Appeal, “ ‘[t]he purpose of restitution is not only to compensate the victim, but also to serve the rehabilitative, deterrent, and retributive goals of the criminal justice system. The trial court is best able to determine how imposing restitution may best serve those goals in each case.’ ” J.K. v. State, 695 So.2d 868, 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (quoting State v. Hawthorne, 573 So.2d 330, 333 (Fla.1991)). Further, as the Second District recognized in

An order requiring payment of restitution only after the juvenile obtains employment is difficult to enforce and places the onus on the State to continue to pursue the child if payment is not forthcoming. The child is left with no feeling of urgency to comply with the restitution provisions, while the victim is left uncompensated.

993 So.2d at 1154.

We wholeheartedly support the interest that J.A.B. has expressed in being able to pursue her educational goals. However, in this case, the court’s restitution order did not require J.A.B. to abandon her education to comply with the payment schedule. The court based the order of restitution on a part-time work schedule at the minimum wage, which provided J.A.B. the opportunity to finish her high school education, pursue higher education, and compensate the victim of her crime through part-time employment. Indeed, the $50 monthly restitution amount was less than J.A.B.’s monthly cell phone bill.

We are certainly mindful of the challenges that a juvenile such as J.A.B. may encounter in attempting to find employment, even at the minimum wage, and considering the fact of her pregnancy and then motherhood, her lack of employment history, and her limited education. We conclude, however, that nothing in the juvenile restitution statute requires a trial court to condition the setting of a restitution payment schedule on the juvenile obtaining employment. It is appropriate for a trial court to set a restitution amount and payment schedule based on the expectation of employment — what the juvenile can reasonably be expected to pay or make upon finding suitable employment. As stated by the Second District:

Given the language of the juvenile restitution statute, the policies underpinning the statute, and the wide discretion generally afforded to judges in awarding restitution, we now conclude that a hard- and-fast rule prohibiting a judge from setting a commencement date for monthly payments of juvenile restitution and requiring that such payments can only be ordered contingent upon the juvenile actually obtaining employment is inappropriate.

993 So.2d at 1154.

We note, however, that in any subsequent enforcement proceeding brought by the State, the prosecution would have to prove that the “ ‘probationer willfully violated a substantial condition of probation.’” E.P. v. State, 901 So.2d 193, 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (quoting Van Wagner v. State, 677 So.2d 314, 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)). Therefore, at the time when the State seeks enforcement, the issue becomes whether the juvenile has the ability to pay the amount of restitution ordered. At that time, the juvenile’s inability to find employment despite reasonable efforts to do so would also be relevant.

CONCLUSION

Based on' our analysis, we approve the Second District’s decision in J.A.B. and disapprove the decision of the First District in J.A.M. to the extent that the First District has required that a commencement date for restitution be conditioned on the juvenile obtaining employment.

It is so ordered.

QUINCE, C.J., and LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

      . J.A.B. also argues that the trial court erred in setting the amount and terms of the payment schedule for restitution based on J.A.B.'s specific circumstances, specifically asserting that the trial court erred because there was no evidence presented about what J.A.B. could reasonably be expected to make and because it determined J.A.B.'s ability to pay based on the trial judge's personal experience. We decline to reach these issues because they are outside the scope of the certified conflict and because they are not addressed in the Second District’s opinion.

      . The statute in existence at the time of J.A.M.'s offense provided in relevant part: "When restitution is ordered by the court, the amount of restitution shall not exceed an amount the child and his parents could reasonably be expected to pay or make.” § 39.054(l)(a)(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1990) (emphasis added). This provision was added by the Legislature in 1990 and was relied upon by J.A.M., although the citation in the case is to section 39.054(l)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (1989), instead of to the 1990 supplement.

      . The language of the operative provision has changed slightly since the 1990 statute at issue in J.A.M. The 2005 statute at issue in the instant case and the current 2009 statute both provide that the "the amount of restitution may not exceed,” § 985.231(1)(a)(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005) (emphasis added); § 985.437(2), Fla. Stat. (2009) (emphasis added), instead of "shall not exceed." § 39.054(l)(a)(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1990) (emphasis added). However, this distinction is of no import. Other distinctions between the entirety of section 39.054, Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), and sections 985.231, Florida Statutes (2005), and 985.435, Florida Statutes (2009), also do not affect this analysis.

      . Section 985.231, which was in effect at the time J.A.B. committed the battery, has been amended and renumbered as sections 985.435, 985.437, 985.445, 985.45, 985.455, 985.475, and 985.513. See ch. 2006-120, §§ 46-47, 51-53, 57, 65, Laws of Fla.

      . While lack of employment history and a juvenile record present a very real obstacle to a juvenile obtaining employment, community programs have helped to address these issues while fostering a sense of responsibility on the part of the juvenile. For example, the Ninth Judicial Circuit, serving Orange and Osceola Counties, in partnership with Goodwill Industries, sponsors The Pay Up Program, with the goal of holding juveniles "accountable for their actions by ensuring they compensate their victims for losses suffered as the result of a juvenile crime.” See Pay Up Program, http://www.ninja9.org/courts/juvenile/payup. htm (last visited Dec. 31, 2009). Juveniles ages 16 to 18 years old are provided work ethics and employability training. The juveniles are closely monitored and once they obtain jobs, a minimum of 50% of their wages goes towards their restitution until the victims are paid in full. The 10- to 15-year-olds in the program, who are too young to work, are assigned community service work and the victim is compensated $5.15 for every hour worked by the juvenile. Id. Similarly, Project Payback requires juvenile offenders who cannot obtain employment to complete community restitution service hours at an approved site. For every verified hour of service that the juvenile completes, Project Payback will forward the minimum wage to the victim. The program is currently active in Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Gilchrist, Levy, and Union counties. See Project Payback, http://sawww. co.alachua.fl.us/Payback/Default.htm (last visited Dec. 31, 2009).

      . The issue of the burden of proof in enforcement proceedings in juvenile delinquency cases is not before us. The Second District, in the context of adult restitution, has held that the State has the burden of proving that the defendant had the ability to pay and willfully failed to do so. See Blackwelder v. State, 902 So.2d 905, 907 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). To lire extent there is a conflict in the district courts as to who bears the burden of proof in the adult context, see Del Valle v. State, 994 So.2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), that conflict issue is presently before this Court in Del Valle v. State, No. SC08-2001, 2009 WL 4401210 (Fla. oral argument held Oct. 7, 2009).


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    Susan M. ZARYCKI-WEIG, Appellant, v. John A. WEIG, Appellee.
    No. 4D08-573.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    July 29, 2009.

      Jack Pugh of Pugh & Associates, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Jay A. Schwartz, Nicole Caruso Seropi-an and Jennifer Kane Waterway of Sachs Sax Caplan, Boca Raton, for appellee.
   On Motion for Rehearing

PER CURIAM.

We deny appellant’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our previously issued opinion, and substitute the following in its place.

The wife challenges several aspects of the trial court’s final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We write to address her challenge to the imputation of income to her and the denial of her request for alimony. We affirm, finding that competent substantial evidence supports the imputation of income and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying nominal alimony.

The parties were married fifteen years, four of which they were separated, and had two children. The husband, age forty-two, was employed as an attorney earning $78,024 per year. The wife, age thirty-eight, has a bachelor’s degree from the University of Florida and worked at various intervals during the parties’ marriage in the retail industry. Her most recent employment was in 2002 to 2003 as an assistant manager at Victoria’s Secret where she earned $38,000 a year.

The wife maintained she left her job at Victoria’s Secret due to back pain. She claimed that she is unable to work due to disabilities and pain caused by child birth and two car accidents, one in 1998 and another in 2004. In support of her position, she presented the testimony of Robert Galt, a vocational rehabilitation specialist with no medical training, who reviewed the wife’s medical records and met with her for three hours. It was his opinion that her level of disability was such that she is “wholly unemployable.” She also presented the testimony of Andre Hope, a chiropractic physician, who examined the wife for thirty minutes. Based on the wife’s subjective complaints, past medical history as reported by the wife, and some medical records, he concluded that she had a 12% permanent physical impairment.

To refute the wife’s claim that she was physically unable to work, the husband presented the testimony of a witness who observed the wife do a number of physical activities around the house and yard. The wife herself admitted that she cooks, cleans the house, and goes on outings to the park and mall. She has held employment that required her to work at least forty hours a week on her feet.

For purposes of alimony and child support, the court found that the wife willingly chose not to return to her job at Victoria’s Secret. She presented no credible medical evidence of any physical disability that would prohibit her employment. Although the wife claimed injuries from automobile accidents and testified to the use of pain medication, she had not filed for disability. Finding that she was voluntarily unemployed, the court imputed income to her in the amount of $38,000 per year. The court denied the wife’s claim for alimony after considering the factors set forth in section 61.08(2), including the parties’ very modest standard of living and limited financial resources, concluding that “the Wife may have the need for alimony. However, the Husband does not have the ability to pay alimony.” From this order, the wife appeals.

The wife asserts that the trial court erred in imputing income to her where she is unable to work due to pain and limitations from her medical conditions, as evidenced by the testimony of her vocational rehabilitation specialist and chiropractor. “In considering the imputation of income, the standard of review is whether the trial court’s determination is supported by competent, substantial evidence.” Schram v. Schram, 932 So.2d 245, 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

A trial court shall impute income to an unemployed parent where such unemployment is voluntary, “absent a finding of fact by the court of physical or mental incapacity or other circumstances over which the parent has no control.” § 61.30(2)(b), Fla. Stat. In determining the imputation of income, a trial court first must conclude that the termination of employment was voluntary. Schram, 932 So.2d at 249. Second, the court must determine whether the subsequent unemployment “resulted from the spouse’s pursuit of [her] own interests or through less than diligent and bona fide efforts to find employment paying income at a level equal to or better than that formerly received.” Id. at 249-50 (citation omitted). The trial court may only impute a level of income supported by the evidence of employment potential and probable earnings based on work history, qualifications, and prevailing wages in the community. Id. at 250; § 61.30(2)(b), Fla. Stat. The spouse claiming that the other spouse is voluntarily unemployed bears the burden of proof. Chipman v. Chipman, 975 So.2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Competent substantial evidence supports the trial court’s imputation of income to the wife. The husband presented the testimony of a witness who observed the wife partaking in physically demanding activities around the yard and house. The wife admitted to working outside the home at various times during the parties’ marriage. The court further considered evidence that she had a bachelor’s degree and had worked as a manager at Victoria’s Secret earning $38,000 a year until she voluntarily terminated her employment. Imputation of $38,000 in income to the wife was consistent with her prior, most recent employment. This court will not second-guess the trial court’s finding that the wife’s evidence of her inability to work was not credible. See Francavilla v. Francavilla, 969 So.2d 522, 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). In fact, we commend the trial judge for her carefully thought out opinion.

The wife next contends that the court erred in failing to award her nominal alimony to preserve the court’s jurisdiction to revisit the award, because the court’s finding that the husband did not have the present ability to pay implied the potential for future ability. A trial court’s decision regarding nominal alimony is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Roy v. Roy, 522 So.2d 75, 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (“whether to reserve jurisdiction to award alimony in the future lies within the court’s discretion”).

The two primary considerations in determining permanent periodic alimony are need and ability to pay. Lamont v. Lamont, 851 So.2d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). A court should retain jurisdiction by awarding nominal permanent alimony only where there is a likelihood of a change in circumstances in the future that would warrant an award of permanent alimony. Roy, 522 So.2d at 76. “In other words, there must presently appear in the record foreseeable circumstances to take place in the future as would at that time support an award of alimony.” Id. While evidence of long standing and chronic debilitating health problems may be sufficient to support an award of nominal permanent alimony, they do not mandate such an award. Esteva v. Rodriguez, 913 So.2d 684, 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award the wife nominal alimony, as the length of the marriage was a “gray area” and the evidence did not support a likelihood that there would be a change in the parties’ financial circumstances that would support an award of alimony to the wife. All of the cases cited by the wife, with the exception of Fleck v. Fleck, 958 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), and Esteva, involve long-term marriages where there is a presumption in favor of permanent alimony. The parties’ fifteen-year marriage, which included four years during which the parties were separated, is a “gray area” for which no presumption exists in favor of or against an award of permanent alimony. See, e.g., Greene v. Greene, 895 So.2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (fifteen-year marriage); Fleck, 958 So.2d 1043 (eleven-year marriage).

In Fleck, the trial court found that “the Husband does not have the current ability to pay” and “shall not be obligated to pay the Wife any alimony at this time.” 958 So.2d at 1044 (first emphasis added). This implied that the husband’s financial circumstances might change. In contrast, the trial court here found that “the Wife may have the need for alimony. However, the Husband does not have the ability to pay alimony.” The court gave no indication that it found that the husband’s financial situation might change, nor would such a finding be supported by the record. The court did not even conclusively find that the wife had the need for alimony, as it found that the wife may have a need.

In Esteva, the trial court denied the wife’s request for nominal permanent alimony without explanation after it orally indicated a desire to award nominal alimony because of the wife’s medical condition, but expressed a belief that such an award was legally impermissible. The Third District reversed and remanded because it was unclear whether the trial court had exercised its discretion in denying the request. Unlike in Esteva, there is no indication that the trial court was unaware of the option of awarding nominal alimony.

Affirmed.

GROSS, C.J., WARNER and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.


text:
    Shawntre SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D08-2286.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Aug. 28, 2009.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 14, 2010.
    Jeffrey Lewis, Regional Conflict Counsel; and Laura Anstead, Assistant Conflict Counsel, of Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Bill McCollum, Attorney General; and Christine A. Guard, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Shawntre Smith appeals from a judgment and sentence entered upon the jury’s verdict finding Smith guilty of attempted armed robbery with a firearm pursuant to sections 812.13(2)(a) and 777.04, Florida Statutes (2007). He first contends that because the State failed to prove a prima facie case of attempted robbery, the trial court should have granted the motion for judgment of acquittal. He next asserts he was denied a fair trial based on a combination of errors. The first issue was not preserved for appellate review, and we do not find fundamental error. See F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226, 229 (Fla.2003) (“The sole exception to the contemporaneous objection rule applies where the error is fundamental.”); Nevels v. State, 685 So.2d 856, 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (“Except in cases of fundamental error, appellate courts will not consider an issue that has not been presented to the lower court in a manner that specifically addresses the contentions asserted.”). To the extent the second issue suggests any error at all, we conclude it argues the type of “ineffective assistance of counsel” that, although somewhat persuasive on direct appeal, is more appropriately addressed in the trial court by a timely, sworn motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Smith v. State, 998 So.2d 516, 522-23 & n. 5 (Fla.2008); White v. State, 977 So.2d 680, 681-82 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Neal v. State, 854 So.2d 666, 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Boykin v. State, 725 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Accordingly, we AFFIRM Smith’s conviction and sentence, without prejudice to his right to seek post-conviction relief.

KAHN, BENTON, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.


text:
    Yesenia CASTILLO, Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES and Specialty Risk Services, Appellees.
    No. 1D09-0061.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Oct. 14, 2009.

      Toni L. Villaverde of Toni L. Villaverde PLLC, South Miami, for Appellant.
    Stephen A. Smith and Ara R. Gechijian of Pallo, Marks, Hernandez, Gechijian & DeMay, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for Appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

Claimant appeals the Judge of Compensation Claims’ (JCC’s) order on two substantive grounds. Claimant argues the JCC erred in determining the due date for payment of the additional impairment benefits and in adjudicating issues not ripe for determination. We affirm the JCC’s determination that the additional impairment benefits were due on October 13, 2008, as competent substantial evidence supports that finding. We reverse the JCC’s adjudication of any benefit other than Claimant’s entitlement to medical treatment for her knee to include injections and physical therapy.

The parties agreed that certain issues included in the petitions for benefits, which had been the subject of a pretrial, had been resolved and Claimant withdrew other claims. It was agreed the two remaining issues involved entitlement to medical treatment for the knee. Claimant’s request that her recently filed petition for benefits be considered by the JCC was met with objection from the Employer/Carrier on grounds it had not been mediated nor had it been the subject of a pretrial. The JCC denied Claimant’s request.

Despite denying Claimant’s request during the hearing, the JCC addressed in his order the issue of whether Dr. Moya was an authorized physician and which party should be responsible for payment of his bill. Once the JCC found these issues were not ripe for adjudication, he erred in addressing them. See Farnam v. U.S. Sugar Corp., 9 So.3d 41, 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (holding “JCC erred in addressing whether repetitive trauma caused, to any degree, the low back condition” because JCC “found the claim was not ripe for adjudication”). Accordingly, all findings that relate to any matter other than the entitlement to knee injections and physical therapy are stricken.

The order is AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

VAN NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ„ and BROWNING, JR, EDWIN B, Senior Judge, concur.


text:
    COLUMBIA LAKE CITY MEDICAL CENTER/BROADSPIRE, Appellants, v. Linda JOHNS, Appellee.
    No. 1D09-4229.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Oct. 27, 2009.

      Kim L. McCall and Robert H. Sturgess of Marks Gray, P.A., for Appellants.
    Brian Sganga, Lake City, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Upon review of Appellants’ response to this Court’s show cause order entered September 10, 2009, the Court DENIES Appellants’ Motion to Remand Case and hereby DISMISSES this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.180(b)(1)(C). See also, e.g., Landry v. AMS Staff Leasing, 993 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Sun Sentinel & Tribune Co. v. Petrovich, 744 So.2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Cadco Builders, Inc. v. Roberts, 712 So.2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

WEBSTER, BENTON, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.


text:
    Reggie E. JERNIGAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, Appellee.
    No. 1D09-2129.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Oct. 30, 2009.
    Teresa E. Liles and T. Rhett Smith of Smith & Liles, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant.
    Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Lee Ann Gustafson, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Upon appellee’s proper concession of error, the order awarding attorney’s fees and costs entered by the State Retirement Commission on April 1, 2009, is hereby quashed. Appellee’s motion for remand is granted. This matter is remanded to the State Retirement Commission for reconsideration by the Commission of a reasonable attorney’s fee in light of the evidence presented at the previous hearing.

HAWKES, C.J., WOLF and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.


text:
    W.S., the Father, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D09-4560.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Nov. 9, 2009.
    W.S., pro se, Petitioner.
    Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

This petition seeking belated appeal of an order terminating parental rights is dismissed without prejudice to petitioner’s right to seek relief in the lower tribunal. See In Interest of E.H., 609 So.2d 1289 (Fla.1992) (stating that the proper procedure for seeking belated appeal from an order terminating parental rights is by a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed with the trial court).

VAN NORTWICK, and PADOVANO, JJ., and BROWNING, JR., EDWIN B, Senior Judge, concur.


text:
    NANTUCKET ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. PALM BEACH FLORIDA HOTEL AND OFFICE BUILDING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership, and Ashford TRS IV LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Appellees.
    No. 4D09-431.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Nov. 12, 2009.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 9, 2010.
    Patrick W. Maraist of Maraist Law Firm, P.A., North Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Elliot B. Rula of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Miami, Bridget Ann Berry, and Patrick G. Dempsey of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed. See Shell v. Foulkes, 19 So.3d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

FARMER, TAYLOR, JJ., and LEVENSON, JEFFREY, R„ Associate Judge, concur.


author: KELLY, Judge.

text:
    CANDANSK, LLC, a/k/a Candansk, LLC, d/b/a Carrington Place Care Center; Arfind America, Inc.; 1521030 Ontario, Inc.; Dansk Management, Inc.; American Care Real Estate Holdings, LLC; ACMH-CNH, Inc.; Senior Management Services, Inc.; Paul J. Prybylski, a/k/a Paul John Prybylski; Carrington Place of St. Pete LLC; Traditions Management of Florida, LLC; Ben Atkins, a/k/a Ben A. Atkins; Mary A. Morrison; Dawn Edwards, a/k/a Dawn Allison Edwards; Kim Gibb, a/k/a Kimberly Gibb, a/k/a Kimberly Ann Gschwind Gibb; Suzanne Wadlin, a/k/a Suzanne Kathryn Wadlin; Nancy J. Malloy, a/k/a Nancy Jill Malloy; (as to Carrington Place Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, f/k/a Candansk, LLC, d/b/a Carrington Place, a/k/a Carrington Place Care Center, a/k/a Carrington Place, f/k/a Carrington Place Convalescent Center), Appellants, v. The ESTATE OF Opal Irene HICKS, by and through Robert BROWNRIDGE, Personal Representative, Appellee.
    No. 2D08-5230.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Nov. 13, 2009.

      Mara B. Levy and Mark B. Hartig of McCumber, Daniels, Buntz, Hartig & Puig, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants.
    Susan B. Morrison of Law Offices of Susan B. Morrison, P.A., and Isaac R. Ruiz-Carus of Wilkes & McHugh, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.
   KELLY, Judge.

The estate of Opal Hicks sued the appellant nursing home, Carrington Place of St. Pete, LLC, its employees, and others alleging negligence, wrongful death, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of Ms. Hicks’ rights as a resident under section 400.022, Florida Statutes (2007). The appellants moved to dismiss and to compel arbitration, seeking to enforce the arbitration clause in the agreement to admit Ms. Hicks to the nursing home. The agreement had been signed by Sandra Brown-ridge, Ms. Hicks’ daughter, who Ms. Hicks had appointed as her attorney-in-fact by means of a general power of attorney form. The estate opposed the motion to compel arbitration, arguing that the power of attorney Ms. Hicks executed did not give her daughter the specific authority to agree to arbitration on Ms. Hicks’ behalf. Following hearings on the motions, the trial court denied the appellants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the language in the power of attorney did not grant the power to agree to arbitration. In this appeal, the appellants challenge the trial court’s nonfinal order denying their motion. Because the interpretation of a power of attorney is a question of law, we review the trial court’s decision de novo. See Jaylene, Inc. v. Moots, 995 So.2d 566, 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

The power of attorney Ms. Hicks executed was a form containing a list of specific powers that the principal could choose to confer on the attorney-in-fact. Pertinent here, Ms. Hicks specifically granted her attorney-in-fact the power to “act in my name, place and stead in any way which I myself could do, if I were personally present, with respect to ... [c]laims and litigation.” (Emphasis added.) A power of attorney need not expressly refer to arbitration to confer the authority to agree to this method of dispute resolution. Id. at 569. Here, the power of attorney authorizes the attorney-in-fact to do anything Ms. Hicks could have done personally with respect to claims and litigation. Because Ms. Hicks could have agreed to arbitration had she been able to act on her own behalf, her attorney-in-fact was likewise authorized to do so.

The estate nevertheless argues that we should construe this broad grant of authority to exclude the power to agree to arbitration because the power of attorney only grants the attorney-in-fact the power to act in matters concerning Ms. Hicks’ “property rights,” not her “personal constitutional rights.” The estate relies on the language in the Notice paragraph preceding the designation of the attorney-in-fact, which states the following:

NOTICE: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DOCUMENT. BEFORE SIGNING THIS DOCUMENT, YOU SHOULD KNOW THESE IMPORTANT FACTS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS TO GIVE THE PERSON WHOM YOU DESIGNATE (YOUR “AGENT”) BROAD POWERS TO HANDLE YOUR PROPERTY, WHICH MAY INCLUDE POWERS TO PLEDGE, SELL OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF ANY REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHOUT ADVANCE NOTICE TO YOU OR APPROVAL BY YOU. THESE POWERS WILL CONTINUE TO EXIST EVEN AFTER YOU BECOME DISABLED OR INCOMPETENT. THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ANYONE TO MAKE MEDICAL OR OTHER HEALTH CARE DECISIONS FOR YOU. IF THERE IS ANYTHING ABOUT THIS FORM THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND, YOU SHOULD ASK A LAWYER TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU. YOU MAY REVOKE THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IF YOU LATER WISH TO DO SO.

The estate’s argument evinces a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes property, and it overlooks the fact that the language used in this power of attorney is widely used and commonly understood to include the power to submit to arbitration.

The estate’s argument that the power of attorney was intended to provide the attorney-in-fact with authority only with respect to Ms. Hicks’ property rights is unavailing because her estate’s claim against the nursing home is property. See Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313-14, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) (noting that a cause of action is a species of property protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment).

One form of intangible property is a cause of action. This is a right grounded in tort, property or contract law to recover a judgment for money or property from another person whose conduct or activity is deemed by applicable law to have caused the claimant to suffer damage or a loss.

Williams v. Am. Optical Corp., 985 So.2d 23, 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), review granted, Am. Optical Corp. v. Spiewak, 12 So.3d 220 (Fla.2009). Access to the courts — that is, the right to redress grievances — -is a protected property right. Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 428, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982) (holding that a state created statutory claim is a constitutionally protected property interest); Sunspan Eng’g & Const. Co. v. Spring-Lock Scaffolding Co., 310 So.2d 4, 8 (Fla.1975) (“[A] vested cause of action, or ‘chose in action’ is personal property entitled to protection from arbitrary laws.”); see also McCuiston v. Wanicka, 483 So.2d 489, 491 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (holding that a statute delaying prisoners from bringing civil actions until they were released from custody “unreasonably deprived prisoners of a protected property right, namely, a chose in action”). Finally, section 709.08(6), Florida Statutes (2007), specifically identifies a “chose in action” as property to which a durable power of attorney may apply.

Additionally, while Florida does not have a statutory form power of attorney, many states do. The form Ms. Hicks used in this case is typical of forms used throughout the country. These forms are derivations of the statutory form contained in Article 3 of the Uniform Power of Attorney Act. See, e.g., Alaska Stat. § 13.26.332 (2009), Cal. Prob.Code § 4401 (2009). Compare Unif. Power of Attorney Act § 301, 8B U.L.A. 79 (Supp.2009). As does the form used by Ms. Hicks, these statutory forms list the powers that may be conferred on the attorney-in-fact, including the power to act with respect to “claims and litigation.” Without exception, these statutes provide that this language empowers the attorney-in-fact to submit to arbitration or “alternative dispute resolution.” Additionally, Article 2 of the Uniform Power of Attorney Act lists “claims and litigation” among the subjects over which authority can be conferred, and it provides a detailed description of the authority conferred which includes, among other things, the authority to “submit to alternative dispute resolution, settle, and propose or accept a compromise.” Unif. Power of Attorney Act § 212, 8B U.L.A. (Supp.2009) at 72.

When called upon to interpret a power of attorney that is modeled on a widely used statutory form, it seems prudent to consider the commonly understood meaning of the terms used in the form because to do otherwise risks thwarting the principal’s intent. As evidenced by the various states’ statutes, the power to act with respect to “claims and litigation” is commonly understood to include the power to submit to arbitration. This fact reinforces our conclusion that Ms. Hicks’ power of attorney conferred that power on her attorney-in-fact.

Here, the language of the power of attorney unambiguously confers on the attorney-in-fact the general power to act in any way Ms. Hicks could act with respect to claims and litigation. That general power includes the power to agree to submit to arbitration. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

WHATLEY and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

      . The power of attorney form Ms. Hicks executed stated the following:
      My attorney-in-fact shall act in my name, place and stead in any way which I myself could do, if I were personally present, with respect to the following matters, to the extent diat I am permitted by law to act through an agent:

      [initialed] (A) Real estate transactions
      [initialed] (B) Tangible personal property transactions
      [initialed] (C) Bond, share and commodity transactions
      [initialed] (D) Banking transactions
      [initialed] (E) Business operating transactions
      [initialed] (F) Insurance transactions
      (G) Gifts to charities and individuals

      [initialed] (H) Claims and litigation
      [initialed] (I) Personal relationships and affairs
      CD Benefits from military service
      [initialed] (K) Records, reports and statements
      [initialed] (L) Full and unqualified authority to my attorney-in-fact to delegate any or all of the foregoing powers to any person or persons whom my attorney-in-fact shall select
      (M) Access to safe deposit box(es)
      [initialed] (N) All other matters
      [initialed] (0) Durable Provision: This durable Power of Attorney shall not be affected by my subsequent disability or incompetence.

      . The Uniform Power of Attorney Act indicates that currently eighteen states have statutory forms. Unif. Power of Attorney Act, Art. 3, General Comment, 8B U.L.A. 79 (Supp. 2009).

      . Article 3 of the Uniform Power of Attorney Act replaces the Uniform Statutory Form Power of Attorney Act. Unif. Power of Attorney Act, Art. 1, General Comment, 8B U.L.A. 34 (Supp.2009).

      . See, e.g., Ark.Code Ann. § 28-68-412 (2009); Cal. Prob.Code § 4459 (2009); Colo. Rev.Stat. § 15-14-735 (2009); Idaho Code Ann. § 15-12-212 (2009); Mont.Code Ann. § 72-31-232 (2009); N.M. Stat. § 46B-1-212 (2009); Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 1014 (2009).