e.g., advance procurement of weapon, lack of provocation, killing carried out as a matter of course, whereas the facts supporting the commission to avoid arrest must focus on the defendant’s motivation for the crime. Rodriguez v. State, correctly argues that the “plan to kill cannot be inferred solely from a plan to commit, or the commission of, another felony.” Geralds v. State, 601 So.2d 1157, 1163 ( Fla.1992). Although it appears the defendants initially only sought to steal a vehicle, there is competent substantial evidence that the defendants armed themselves in advance, discussed killing the victims, did so by killing them execution-style, and deliberately poured accelerants throughout the home before lighting the home on fire. See Knight v. State, 746 So.2d 423, 436 (Fla.1998) (<HOLDING>). With respect to the “heightened
holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review holding that the finality of a contracting officers determination was suspended during his review of a request by the contractor to reconsider the final decision holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence holding even if knight did not make the final decision to execute the two victims until sometime during his lengthy journey to his final destination that journey provided an abundance of time for knight to coldly and calmly decide to kill holding that the reasonableness standard applies to the final sentence not to each individual decision made during the sentencing process