In Zack v. State, 753 So. 2d 9, 19 (Fla. 2000), the court noted that "as a matter of law, the court cannot refuse to consider relevant mitigating factors." The court reviewed our directive in Campbell v. State, 571 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1990), quoting the pertinent portion as follows: When addressing mitigating circumstances, the sentencing court must expressly evaluate in its sentencing 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. See Rogers v. State, 511 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1020, 98 L. Ed. 2d 681, 108 S. Ct. 733 (1988). The court must find as a mitigating circumstance each proposed factor that is mitigating in nature and has been reasonably established by the greater weight of the evidence . . . .Zack, 753 So. 2d at 19. (quoting Campbell, 571 So. 2d at 419). But the court also noted in Zack that whether a mitigating factor has been proven by the evidence is a question of fact subject to the competent, substantial evidence standard, which requires that the facts be evident in the record. See Zack, 753 So. 2d at 19; see also Cave v. State, 727 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1998).