We affirm Appellants judgment and sentence following his straight-up plea of guilty to child abuse of his own daughter, and unlawful use of a two-way communication device to facilitate a felony. The trial court aptly described the abuse as “torture.” The record contains voluminous pictures of the childs injuries, documented by medical personnel, and extensive extractions from Appellants and his fiancees cell phones containing pictures and messages between them about punishing the child and withholding food.
Appellant is 6’2” or 6’3” tall and weighs 350-400 pounds. The victim was Appellants 9-year-old biological daughter, who weighed 74 pounds. The evidence showed that Appellant and his fiancee (also prosecuted for the same crimes), beat the child with electric cords and belts as well as with their hands, forced her to stand and hold heavy objects for a long period of time (sometimes jugs full of water, other times two backpacks containing a combined weight of 30 pounds), deprived her of food, and did not allow her to sleep. They forced her to stay in the living room and blocked her access to any bathroom with a heavy bookcase, and then punished her when she had toileting accidents. They used remote cameras and cell phones to facilitate the crimes, including motion sensors to alert them when the child tried to move or sit down. The record contains pictures depicting each adult in the act of hitting the child as she shrinks away from them, and she is pictured holding the heavy objects and being forced to “plank” sitting against a wall. She had oozing welts, bruises, cuts, and partially or fully healed injuries all over her body, and a lacerated spleen. She took food from schoolmates, and begged for food from neighbors and health care workers. When provided food outside her home, she would eat excessive amounts too quickly, in one instance causing her to vomit in the presence of healthcare workers.
The adults’ text messages to one another frequently bragged and laughed about what they were doing to the child. In one text, Appellant says “I hate this M.F.,” speaking about his daughter. He admitted sending that text, as well as texting that “I just want to give her back [to her biological mother] but I cant do without the tax [sic] money.” There were similar texts about its being the fiancees day to “beat [the childs] ass,” and that “Ive got to stop hitting her up side the head.” In one particularly chilling text, Appellant said to his fiancee, “I had to leave from out of there before I kill her. She got blood from her mouth, face, and all. Im done. Just watch her, man. I be killed her.” And, “Shes got to heal. Arms got holes. Ive done broke my belt.” Appellant admitted giving up custody of the girl when this case started.
The sole issue Appellant raises on appeal is whether the trial court improperly considered Appellants lack of remorse during sentencing. Because the issue was not raised below, we review it for fundamental error. In closing argument, Appellants counsel asserted that Appellant accepted responsibility for what he did (although counsel presented a vastly reduced set of acts for which Appellant accepted responsibility). In announcing the sentence, the trial court twice stated that Appellants testimony showed a failure to take responsibility for what the objective evidence, including Appellants own texts and pictures, established that Appellant had done. Under controlling Florida Supreme Court precedent, the trial court did not err, let alone commit fundamental error. See Davis v. State, 332 So. 3d 970, 977 (Fla. 2021) (holding trial court is entitled to consider defendants failure to accept responsibility or express remorse once the defendant voluntarily allocutes at sentencing).
Affirmed.
Per Curiam.
Kelsey, Jay, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.