following reasons, we uphold the decision of the trial court. A. ¶ 32 Appellant first argues that the trial court failed to properly weigh the aggravating and mitigating evidence. In accordance with A.R.S. § 13-703.01, we independently review the trial court’s findings regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances. See State v. Djerf, 191 Ariz. 583, 595, 959 P.2d 1274, 1286 (1998). We begin our analysis with the aggravating factors. The trial court found the presence of one aggravating factor, namely that Appellant murdered the victim in an especially cruel, heinous, and depraved manner. See A.R.S. § 13-703.F.6. We uphold the trial court’s finding of cruelty and therefore need not reach the heinous/depraved issue. See State v. Towery, 186 Ariz. 168, 187, 920 P.2d 290, 309 (1996) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 33 The trial court found beyond a
holding that a trial courts finding of cruelty beyond a reasonable doubt sufficiently establishes the f6 factor holding factual finding authorizing death penalty must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt holding that beyond reasonable doubt standard not required in termination cases holding that trial court must determine whether fifth amendment violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that admission of evidence is harmless if it is cumulative to other legitimately admitted evidence that establishes a defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt