lambrix
singletary
secretary
florida
department
corrections
argued
january
decided
may
held
although
question
whether
federal
resolve
claim
procedural
bar
considering
claim
teague
bar
previously
presented
opinions
particularly
coleman
thompson
suggest
procedural
bar
issue
ordinarily
considered
first
nonetheless
chooses
resolve
case
procedural
bar
ground
lambrix
asserts
several
reasons
procedural
bar
apply
validity
appropriately
determined
lower
federal
courts
familiar
procedural
practices
sit
rather
prolong
litigation
remand
proceeds
decide
question
presented
pp
prisoner
whose
conviction
became
final
espinosa
foreclosed
relying
decision
federal
habeas
proceeding
pp
apply
teague
federal
habeas
must
determine
date
defendant
conviction
became
final
survey
legal
landscape
existed
date
determine
whether
state
considering
defendant
claim
felt
compelled
existing
precedent
conclude
rule
defendant
seeks
constitutionally
required
consider
whether
relief
sought
falls
within
one
two
narrow
exceptions
nonretroactivity
pp
survey
legal
landscape
date
lambrix
conviction
became
final
shows
espinosa
dictated
existing
precedent
announced
new
rule
defined
teague
significant
espinosa
supra
cited
single
case
support
central
conclusion
baldwin
alabama
introduced
lone
citation
cf
introductory
signal
indicating
authority
supports
point
dictum
analogy
baldwin
page
espinosa
cites
defendant
espinosa
like
argument
conceivably
might
merit
circumstances
present
case
decisions
relied
heavily
lambrix
godfrey
georgia
maynard
cartwright
clemons
mississippi
dictate
result
ultimately
reached
espinosa
rather
close
examination
florida
death
penalty
scheme
light
cases
proffitt
florida
joint
opinion
white
concurring
judgment
spaziano
florida
indicates
reasonable
jurist
considering
matter
time
lambrix
sentence
became
final
reached
result
different
espinosa
conclusion
confirmed
walton
arizona
fact
espinosa
handed
per
curiam
without
oral
argument
insignificant
since
decision
followed
three
weeks
sochor
florida
identical
issue
fully
briefed
argued
decided
jurisdictional
reasons
pp
espinosa
new
rule
fall
within
either
exceptions
nonretroactivity
doctrine
first
exception
plainly
application
since
espinosa
neither
decriminalizes
class
conduct
prohibits
imposition
capital
punishment
particular
class
persons
saffle
parks
lambrix
contend
second
exception
watershed
rules
criminal
procedure
implicating
criminal
proceeding
fundamental
fairness
accuracy
applies
espinosa
errors
sawyer
smith
makes
clear
pp
affirmed
scalia
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
kennedy
souter
thomas
joined
stevens
filed
dissenting
opinion
ginsburg
breyer
joined
filed
dissenting
opinion
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
wash
ington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
cary
michael
lambrix
petitioner
harry
singletary
secretary
florida
department
corrections
writ
certiorari
appeals
eleventh
circuit
may
justice
scalia
delivered
opinion
granted
certiorari
case
consider
whether
prisoner
whose
conviction
became
final
decision
espinosa
florida
foreclosed
relying
decision
federal
habeas
corpus
proceeding
announced
new
rule
defined
teague
lane
february
cary
michael
lambrix
girlfriend
francis
smith
met
clarence
moore
aleisha
bryant
local
tavern
two
couples
returned
lambrix
trailer
dinner
lambrix
killed
moore
bryant
brutal
fashion
lambrix
convicted
two
counts
first
degree
murder
sentencing
phase
trial
jury
rendered
advisory
verdict
recommending
trial
sentence
lambrix
death
counts
trial
finding
five
aggravating
circumstances
connection
murder
moore
four
aggravating
circumstances
connection
murder
bryant
mitigating
circumstances
either
murder
sentenced
lambrix
death
counts
lambrix
conviction
sentence
upheld
direct
appeal
theflorida
lambrix
state
florida
courts
denied
repeated
efforts
obtain
collateral
relief
lambrix
dugger
lambrix
state
lambrix
state
lambrix
filed
petition
writ
habeas
corpus
pursuant
district
southern
district
florida
rejected
claims
lambrix
appeal
pending
appeals
eleventh
circuit
decided
espinosa
florida
held
sentencing
judge
weighing
state
state
requires
specified
aggravating
circumstances
weighed
mitigating
circumstances
sentencing
phase
capital
trial
required
give
deference
jury
advisory
sentencing
recommendation
neither
jury
judge
constitutionally
permitted
weigh
invalid
aggravating
circumstances
since
florida
state
since
one
lambrix
claims
sentencing
jury
improperly
instructed
especially
heinous
atrocious
cruel
hac
aggravator
espinosa
obvious
relevance
habeas
petition
rather
address
issue
first
instance
however
eleventh
circuit
held
proceedings
abeyance
permit
lambrix
present
espinosa
claim
florida
state
courts
florida
rejected
lambrix
espinosa
claim
without
considering
merits
ground
claim
procedurally
barred
lambrix
singletary
explained
although
lambrix
properly
preserved
espinosa
objection
trial
requesting
limiting
instruction
hac
aggravator
failed
raise
issue
direct
appeal
florida
also
rejected
lambrix
claimthat
procedural
bar
excused
appellate
counsel
ineffective
failing
raise
forfeited
issue
explaining
claim
procedurally
barred
event
meritless
florida
entered
judgment
lambrix
eleventh
circuit
adjudicated
habeas
petition
without
even
acknowledging
procedural
bar
expressly
raised
argued
state
appeals
proceeded
address
espinosa
claim
determined
espinosa
announced
new
rule
applied
retroactively
federal
habeas
teague
lane
granted
certiorari
turning
question
presented
case
pause
consider
state
contention
lambrix
espinosa
claim
procedurally
barred
failed
contend
jury
instructed
vague
hac
aggravator
direct
appeal
florida
according
state
florida
consistently
required
espinosa
issue
must
objected
trial
pursued
direct
appeal
order
reviewed
postconviction
proceedings
brief
respondent
citing
chandler
dugger
jackson
dugger
henderson
singletary
cert
denied
coleman
thompson
reaffirmed
review
question
federal
law
decided
state
decision
rests
state
law
ground
independent
federal
question
adequate
support
judgment
see
also
harris
reed
fact
lack
jurisdiction
review
independently
supported
judgments
direct
appeal
since
state
law
determination
sufficient
sustain
decree
opinion
federal
question
purely
advisory
herb
pitcairn
see
also
sochor
florida
independent
adequate
state
ground
doctrine
technically
jurisdictional
federal
considers
state
prisoner
petition
habeas
corpus
pursuant
since
federal
formally
reviewing
judgment
determining
whether
prisoner
custody
violation
constitution
laws
treaties
nonetheless
held
doctrine
applies
bar
consideration
federal
habeas
federal
claims
defaulted
state
law
coleman
supra
see
also
wainwright
sykes
discussing
brown
allen
ex
parte
spencer
harris
supra
application
independent
adequate
state
ground
doctrine
federal
habeas
review
based
upon
equitable
considerations
federalism
comity
ensures
interest
correcting
mistakes
respected
federal
habeas
cases
coleman
habeas
petitioner
failed
meet
state
procedural
requirements
presenting
federal
claims
deprived
state
courts
opportunity
address
claims
first
instance
ibid
independent
adequate
state
ground
doctrine
applied
federal
district
appeals
able
review
claims
unable
consider
direct
review
see
never
occasion
consider
whether
afederal
resolve
state
contention
petitioner
claim
procedurally
barred
considering
whether
claim
teague
barred
opinions
however
particularly
coleman
certainly
suggest
procedural
bar
issue
ordinarily
considered
first
speculated
oral
argument
appeals
may
resolved
teague
issue
without
first
considering
procedural
bar
opinions
stated
teague
retroactivity
decision
made
threshold
matter
penry
lynaugh
caspari
bohlen
simply
means
however
teague
issue
addressed
considering
merits
claim
mean
teague
inquiry
antecedent
consideration
general
prerequisites
federal
habeas
corpus
unrelated
merits
particular
claim
requirement
petitioner
custody
see
state
judgment
based
independent
adequate
state
ground
constitutional
issues
generally
avoided
even
cursory
review
new
rule
cases
reveals
including
discussion
part
iv
infra
teague
inquiry
requires
detailed
analysis
federal
constitutional
law
see
sawyer
smith
penry
supra
gilmore
taylor
saffle
parks
somewhat
puzzled
eleventh
circuit
held
proceedings
abeyance
petitioner
brought
claim
state
much
mention
florida
determination
lambrix
espinosa
claim
procedurally
barred
state
florida
raised
point
district
appeals
going
far
reiterate
postjudgment
motion
modification
opinion
appeals
reprinted
app
state
procedural
rules
vital
importance
orderly
administration
criminal
courts
federal
permits
readily
evaded
undermines
criminal
justice
system
mean
suggest
procedural
bar
issue
must
invariably
resolved
first
ordinarily
judicial
economy
might
counsel
giving
teague
question
priority
example
easily
resolvable
habeas
petitioner
whereas
procedural
bar
issue
involved
complicated
issues
state
law
cf
permitting
federal
deny
habeas
petition
merits
notwithstanding
applicant
failure
exhaust
state
remedies
despite
puzzlement
appeals
failure
resolve
case
basis
procedural
bar
hesitate
resolve
basis
lambrix
asserts
several
reasons
claim
procedurally
barred
seem
us
insubstantial
may
repeatedly
recognized
courts
appeals
district
courts
familiar
procedural
practices
regularly
sit
see
rummel
estelle
county
ulster
cty
allen
rather
prolong
litigation
remand
proceed
decide
case
teague
grounds
appeals
used
florida
employs
three
stage
sentencing
procedure
first
jury
weighs
statutorily
specified
aggravating
circumstances
mitigating
circumstances
renders
advisory
sentence
either
life
imprisonment
death
stat
second
trialcourt
weighs
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
enters
sentence
life
imprisonment
death
latter
findings
must
set
forth
writing
jury
advisory
sentence
entitled
great
weight
trial
determination
tedder
state
independent
obligation
determine
appropriate
punishment
ross
state
third
florida
automatically
reviews
cases
defendant
sentenced
death
lambrix
jury
instructed
five
aggravating
circumstances
recommended
sentenced
death
murder
trial
found
five
aggravating
circumstances
moore
murder
four
bryant
including
murder
especially
heinous
atrocious
found
mitigating
circumstances
either
murder
concluded
aggravating
circumstances
outweighed
mitigating
sentenced
lambrix
death
count
app
although
lambrix
failed
raise
claims
concerning
sentencing
procedure
direct
appeal
florida
agreed
trial
findings
aggravating
circumstances
lambrix
state
lambrix
contends
jury
consideration
hac
aggravator
violated
eighth
amendment
jury
instructions
concerning
circumstance
failed
provide
sufficient
guidance
limit
jury
discretion
like
eleventh
circuit
see
assume
arguendo
lambrix
contends
heart
present
case
trial
independent
weighing
cure
error
prior
opinion
espinosa
florida
state
contended
lambrix
entitled
relief
sentencing
judge
properly
found
weighed
narrowed
hacaggravator
espinosa
however
established
principle
weighing
state
requires
sentencing
trial
judge
give
deference
jury
advisory
recommendation
neither
judge
jury
constitutionally
permitted
weigh
invalid
aggravating
circumstances
lambrix
seeks
benefit
principle
state
contends
constitutes
new
rule
teague
thus
relied
federal
habeas
corpus
proceeding
teague
held
general
new
constitutional
rules
criminal
procedure
applicable
cases
become
final
new
rules
announced
apply
teague
federal
engages
three
step
process
first
determines
date
upon
defendant
conviction
became
final
see
caspari
bohlen
second
must
urve
legal
landscape
existed
graham
collins
determine
whether
state
considering
defendant
claim
time
conviction
became
final
felt
compelled
existing
precedent
conclude
rule
seeks
required
constitution
saffle
parks
caspari
supra
finally
determines
habeas
petitioner
seeks
benefit
new
rule
must
consider
whether
relief
sought
falls
within
one
two
narrow
exceptions
nonretroactivity
see
gilmore
taylor
lambrix
conviction
became
final
november
time
filing
petition
certiorari
expired
thus
first
principal
task
survey
legal
landscape
date
determine
whether
rule
later
announced
espinosa
dictated
existing
precedent
whether
unlawfulness
lambrix
conviction
apparent
reasonable
jurists
see
graham
butler
mckellar
brennan
dissenting
espinosa
determined
florida
capital
jury
important
respect
co
sentencer
judge
explained
florida
essentially
split
weighing
process
two
initially
jury
weighs
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
result
weighing
process
turn
weighed
within
trial
process
weighing
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
concluded
jury
consideration
vague
aggravator
tainted
trial
sentence
trial
gave
deference
jury
verdict
thus
indirectly
weighed
vague
aggravator
course
weighing
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
ibid
reasoned
indirect
weighing
created
risk
arbitrariness
direct
weighing
invalid
aggravating
factor
ibid
view
espinosa
dictated
precedent
announced
new
rule
used
basis
federal
habeas
corpus
relief
significant
espinosa
purport
rely
upon
controlling
precedent
opinion
cited
single
case
baldwin
alabama
support
central
conclusion
indirect
weighing
invalid
aggravator
creates
potential
arbitrariness
direct
weighing
invalid
aggravator
espinosa
introduced
lone
citation
cf
introductory
signal
shows
authority
supports
point
dictum
analogy
one
controls
dictates
result
baldwin
contains
evidence
espinosa
set
forth
new
rule
baldwin
considered
constitutionality
alabama
death
sentencing
scheme
jury
required
fix
punishment
death
found
defendant
guilty
aggravated
offense
whereupon
trial
conduct
sentencing
hearing
determine
sentence
death
life
imprisonment
defendant
contended
jury
mandatory
sentence
unconstitutional
standing
alone
see
woodson
north
carolina
plurality
opinion
impermissible
trial
consider
verdict
determining
sentence
reach
contention
concluded
alabama
law
jury
verdict
formed
part
trial
judge
sentencing
calculus
noted
however
page
opinion
espinosa
cited
defendant
argument
conceivably
might
merit
judge
actually
required
consider
jury
sentence
recommendation
sentence
jury
believed
appropriate
cf
proffitt
florida
judge
obligated
accord
deference
baldwin
emphasis
added
see
also
express
ing
view
point
highly
tentative
expression
far
showing
baldwin
dictate
result
espinosa
see
sawyer
smith
suggests
opposite
indeed
baldwin
chief
justice
believed
alabama
scheme
contemplate
trial
judge
consider
jury
sentence
nonetheless
held
scheme
constitutional
opinion
concurring
judgment
decisions
relied
upon
heavily
petitioner
godfrey
georgia
maynard
cartwright
clemons
mississippi
godfrey
held
georgia
outrageously
wantonly
vile
horrible
inhuman
aggravator
impermissibly
vague
reasoning
nothing
words
outrageously
wantonly
vile
horrible
inhuman
implies
inherent
restraint
arbitrary
capricious
infliction
death
sentence
concluded
terms
alone
gave
jury
noguidance
plurality
opinion
similarly
maynard
cartwright
applied
retroactively
february
stringer
black
held
oklahoma
hac
aggravator
identically
worded
florida
hac
aggravator
impermissibly
vague
statute
gave
guidance
vague
aggravator
issue
godfrey
sentencing
jury
given
limiting
instruction
although
godfrey
maynard
support
proposition
vague
aggravators
must
sufficiently
narrowed
avoid
arbitrary
imposition
death
penalty
cases
others
demonstrate
failure
instruct
sentencing
jury
properly
respect
aggravator
automatically
render
defendant
sentence
unconstitutional
repeatedly
indicated
sentencing
jury
consideration
vague
aggravator
cured
appellate
review
thus
godfrey
less
concerned
failure
instruct
jury
properly
georgia
failure
narrow
facially
vague
aggravator
appeal
georgia
applied
narrowing
construction
aggravator
rejected
eighth
amendment
challenge
godfrey
death
sentence
notwithstanding
failure
instruct
jury
narrowing
construction
godfrey
supra
likewise
maynard
stressed
vague
hac
aggravator
sufficiently
limited
appeal
oklahoma
criminal
appeals
cure
unfettered
discretion
jury
reached
similar
conclusion
clemons
mississippi
applied
retroactively
february
stringer
clemons
considered
question
whether
sentencer
weighing
vague
hac
aggravator
rendered
sentence
unconstitutional
weighing
state
sentencing
jury
clemons
maynard
givena
hac
instruction
unconstitutionally
vague
held
federal
constitution
prevent
state
appellate
upholding
death
sentence
based
part
invalid
improperly
defined
aggravating
circumstance
either
reweighing
aggravating
mitigating
evidence
harmless
error
review
clemons
see
also
stringer
principles
described
cases
dictate
result
ultimately
reached
espinosa
florida
unlike
oklahoma
see
maynard
supra
given
facially
vague
hac
aggravator
limiting
construction
sufficient
satisfy
constitution
see
proffitt
florida
joint
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
jj
white
concurring
judgment
thus
unlike
sentencing
juries
clemons
maynard
godfrey
instructed
properly
limited
aggravator
sentencing
trial
judge
espinosa
find
hac
aggravator
properly
limited
construction
see
espinosa
citing
walton
arizona
closeexamination
florida
death
penalty
scheme
persuades
us
reasonable
jurist
considering
lambrix
sentence
reached
conclusion
different
one
espinosa
announced
least
three
different
somewhat
related
approaches
suggested
different
outcome
mere
cabining
trial
discretion
avoid
arbitrary
imposition
death
penalty
thus
avoid
unconstitutionality
proffitt
florida
supra
upheld
florida
death
penalty
scheme
contention
resulted
arbitrary
imposition
death
penalty
see
gregg
georgia
trial
judges
given
specific
detailed
guidance
assist
deciding
whether
impose
death
penalty
imprisonment
life
florida
reviewed
sentences
consistency
proffitt
supra
joint
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
jj
opinion
white
joined
chief
justice
rehnquist
proffitt
incidentally
jury
instructed
appropriately
narrowed
hac
aggravator
see
proffitt
wainwright
cert
denied
said
proffitt
en
banc
eleventh
circuit
noted
sensibly
follow
judge
proper
review
sentence
cures
risk
arbitrariness
occasioned
jury
consideration
unconstitutionally
vague
aggravating
circumstance
glock
singletary
cert
denied
argued
course
dissent
contends
see
post
prior
constitutional
error
sentencing
determining
jury
make
difference
conclusion
premise
argument
debatable
whether
make
difference
even
succeeding
point
demonstrates
whether
constitutional
error
sentencing
determining
jury
error
trial
judge
cure
since
florida
law
trial
jury
sentencer
espinosa
concluded
effect
jury
least
part
co
sentencer
along
trial
determination
fairly
traced
opinion
sochor
florida
decided
three
weeks
earlier
explained
florida
law
trial
least
constituent
part
sentencer
implying
jury
well
characterization
considerable
tension
pre
view
proffitt
example
considering
tedder
state
espinosa
primarily
relied
determined
trial
sentencer
joint
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
jj
actual
sentence
determined
trial
judge
emphasis
added
trial
sentencing
authority
florida
sentence
determined
judge
rather
jury
white
concurring
judgment
even
distinguished
florida
scheme
georgia
scheme
grounds
florida
sentence
determined
trial
judge
rather
jury
joint
opinion
emphasis
added
eight
years
later
two
years
petitioner
conviction
became
final
continued
describe
judge
sentencer
see
spaziano
florida
see
also
barclay
florida
plurality
opinion
stevens
concurring
judgment
although
believes
jury
co
sentencer
time
lambrix
conviction
became
final
justice
stevens
explained
sentencing
authority
jury
georgia
judge
florida
ibid
unreasonable
rely
said
proffitt
spaziano
barclay
trial
sentencer
conclude
sentencer
considered
properly
narrowed
aggravators
simply
error
godfrey
maynard
florida
eleventh
circuit
held
precisely
see
smalley
state
bertolotti
dugger
cert
denied
eleventh
circuit
foresaw
possibility
holding
spaziano
reasoning
calls
question
whether
given
error
merely
advisory
proceeding
considered
constitutional
magnitude
proffitt
wainwright
trial
weighing
properly
narrowed
aggravators
mitigators
sufficiently
independent
jury
cure
error
jury
consideration
vague
aggravator
although
florida
interpreted
statute
provided
judge
sentencer
stat
jury
rendered
merely
advisory
sentence
requiring
trial
judge
give
great
weight
jury
advisory
recommendation
tedder
state
supra
nonetheless
emphasized
trial
must
independently
weigh
evidence
aggravation
mitigation
nder
combination
circumstances
th
jury
recommendation
usurp
judge
role
limiting
discretion
eutzy
state
cert
denied
one
case
florida
vacated
sentence
thetrial
given
undue
weight
jury
recommendation
death
make
independent
judgment
whether
death
penalty
imposed
ross
state
emphasis
added
spaziano
florida
supra
acknowledged
florida
trial
conducts
weighing
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
egardless
jury
recommendation
trial
judge
required
conduct
independent
review
evidence
make
findings
regarding
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
emphasis
added
see
also
proffitt
supra
given
precedents
reasonable
think
trial
review
least
constitute
sort
reweighing
satisfy
clemons
mississippi
see
also
stringer
fact
given
view
members
appellate
reweighing
inconsistent
eighth
amendment
see
cabana
bullock
blackmun
dissenting
joined
brennan
marshall
jj
clemons
supra
blackmun
joined
brennan
marshall
stevens
concurring
part
dissenting
part
reasonable
think
trial
reweighing
preferable
one
appeals
prompted
note
clemons
holding
arguably
points
opposite
direction
espinosa
indicates
even
espinosa
result
dictated
precedent
glock
singletary
en
banc
espinosa
announced
new
rule
strongly
confirmed
decision
walton
arizona
although
decided
petitioner
conviction
became
final
walton
particularly
good
proxy
reasonable
jurist
thought
given
relevant
cases
decided
interim
maynard
clemons
holdings
later
held
compelled
law
see
stringer
supra
walton
rejected
claim
arizona
hac
aggravator
failed
sufficiently
channel
sentencer
discretion
summarizing
godfrey
maynard
explained
neithercase
state
appellate
reviewing
propriety
death
sentence
purport
affirm
death
sentence
applying
limiting
definition
said
crucial
conclusion
reached
maynard
walton
supra
reasoning
suggests
even
following
maynard
weighing
state
death
sentence
satisfy
eighth
amendment
long
vague
aggravator
narrowed
point
process
additionally
course
opinion
characterized
clemons
follows
ven
trial
judge
fails
apply
narrowing
construction
implies
improper
construction
constitution
necessarily
require
state
appellate
vacate
death
sentence
based
factor
rather
held
clemons
mississippi
state
appellate
may
determine
whether
evidence
supports
existence
aggravating
circumstance
properly
defined
may
eliminate
consideration
factor
altogether
determine
whether
remaining
aggravating
circumstances
sufficient
warrant
death
penalty
walton
emphasis
added
dissent
devoted
making
forceful
case
espinosa
reasonable
interpretation
prior
law
perhaps
even
reasonable
one
teague
inquiry
applied
decisions
one
must
hope
usually
reasonable
interpretation
prior
law
requires
asks
whether
espinosa
dictated
precedent
whether
interpretation
reasonable
think
plain
jurist
considering
relevant
material
like
dissent
considering
material
favors
espinosa
result
reasonably
reached
conclusion
contrary
holding
case
indeed
lambrix
conviction
became
final
every
decision
aware
see
smalley
state
proffitt
wainwright
bertolotti
dugger
sanchez
velasco
state
cert
denied
suggested
espinosa
new
rule
decision
handed
per
curiam
without
oral
argument
see
glock
singletary
en
banc
tjoflat
dissenting
whatever
inference
established
law
summary
per
curiam
disposition
might
normally
carryis
precluded
peculiar
circumstances
surrounding
summary
per
curiam
espinosa
three
weeks
prior
issuance
espinosa
decided
case
raised
identical
issue
issue
fully
briefed
argued
found
without
jurisdiction
decide
point
however
defendant
failed
preserve
objection
state
courts
see
sochor
florida
obvious
face
matter
espinosa
technical
sense
unargued
case
used
case
pending
petition
certiorari
sochor
decided
vehicle
resolving
fully
argued
point
without
consuming
additional
resources
since
determined
espinosa
announced
new
rule
teague
remains
task
determining
whether
new
rule
nonetheless
falls
within
one
two
exceptions
nonretroactivity
doctrine
first
exception
permits
retroactive
application
new
rule
rule
places
class
private
conduct
beyond
power
state
proscribe
see
teague
addresses
substantive
categorical
guarante
accorded
constitution
rule
prohibiting
certain
category
punishment
class
defendants
status
offense
saffle
parks
quoting
penry
lynaugh
plainly
exception
application
case
espinosa
neither
decriminalize
class
conduct
prohibit
imposition
capital
punishment
particular
class
persons
second
exception
watershed
rules
criminal
procedure
implicating
fundamental
fairnessand
accuracy
criminal
proceeding
ibid
quoting
teague
lambrix
contend
exception
applies
espinosa
errors
opinion
sawyer
smith
makes
quite
clear
reasons
stated
judgment
appeals
eleventh
circuit
affirmed
cary
michael
lambrix
petitioner
harry
singletary
secretary
florida
department
corrections
writ
certiorari
appeals
eleventh
circuit
may
justice
stevens
justice
ginsburg
two
propositions
law
supported
holding
espinosa
florida
first
capital
sentencing
proceeding
state
sentencer
weighs
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
eighth
amendment
violated
jury
instruction
fails
define
especially
heinous
atrocious
cruel
hac
aggravating
circumstance
second
florida
sentencing
proceeding
trial
must
give
great
weight
jury
recommendation
whether
life
death
reasons
concluded
espinosa
constitutional
error
taints
jury
recommendation
presumptively
taints
judge
sentence
well
ibid
two
propositions
supporting
espinosa
holding
well
established
case
decided
first
proposition
dates
back
decided
godfrey
georgia
second
announced
florida
tedder
state
thus
agree
chief
judge
tjoflat
per
curiam
opinion
espinosa
amounted
nothing
application
well
settled
principles
declaring
florida
hac
instruction
unconstitutional
simply
applied
law
announced
initially
godfrey
later
reaffirmed
maynard
cartwright
conclusion
invalid
instruction
may
tainted
jury
death
penalty
recommendation
trial
judge
sentence
merely
acknowledged
florida
holding
years
glock
singletary
tjoflat
dissenting
today
reaches
conclusion
espinosa
announced
new
rule
placing
novel
interpretation
holding
majority
apparently
construes
espinosa
holding
constitutional
error
jury
instruction
automatically
render
unconstitutional
ante
suggests
holdings
godfrey
maynard
clemons
mississippi
appellate
cure
sentencing
jury
weighing
invalid
aggravator
might
led
reasonable
jurist
road
different
one
followed
espinosa
holding
trial
judge
sentence
may
infected
jury
consideration
invalid
aggravating
factor
espinosa
address
entirely
separate
question
whether
jury
error
cured
considered
harmless
either
trial
appellate
level
indeed
subsequent
proceedings
florida
conclude
error
espinosa
case
harmless
upheld
sentence
death
see
espinosa
state
ruling
espinosa
hac
instruction
claim
procedurally
barred
challenged
hac
factor
rather
instruction
alternatively
error
instruction
harmless
beyond
reasonable
doubt
cert
denied
affirmed
espinosa
sentence
decision
espinosa
create
new
rule
forbidding
trial
courts
curing
jury
error
rather
held
weighing
state
decides
place
capital
sentencing
authority
two
actors
rather
one
neither
actor
must
permitted
weigh
invalid
aggravating
circumstances
holding
logical
consequence
applying
godfrey
florida
sentencing
scheme
sinuous
difficult
follow
argument
suggests
three
hypothetical
propositions
law
somehow
demonstrate
narrow
holding
espinosa
dictated
godfrey
tedder
first
posits
reasonable
jurist
might
believed
mere
cabining
trial
discretion
alone
enough
avoid
constitutional
error
ante
emphasis
omitted
critical
part
cabining
however
florida
requirement
properly
instructed
jury
must
opportunity
recommend
life
sentence
judge
must
give
great
weight
recommendation
role
jury
provide
one
cabin
four
walls
fact
three
walls
remain
standing
hardly
excuses
error
removed
wall
represented
jury
recommendation
time
petitioner
sentencing
florida
recognized
jury
critical
role
error
occurred
jury
hesitate
remand
resentencing
even
trial
judge
claimed
unaffected
error
example
messer
state
state
remanded
resentencing
trial
failed
allow
jury
consider
certain
mitigating
evidence
rejected
argument
trial
subsequent
weighing
mitigating
evidence
cured
error
florida
scheme
concluded
one
checks
balances
input
jury
serves
integral
part
ibid
holding
proffitt
florida
plurality
opinion
florida
sentencing
scheme
facially
unconstitutional
suggest
otherwise
determined
state
sentencing
procedure
provided
adequate
safeguards
arbitrary
imposition
death
sentence
part
procedures
followed
bythe
trial
judge
fixing
sentence
focus
adequacy
guidance
provided
sentencing
scheme
accordingly
need
extensively
examine
discuss
judge
relationship
jury
florida
decisions
like
tedder
second
simply
ignoring
reasoning
tedder
suggests
error
trial
judge
cure
since
florida
law
trial
jury
sentencer
ante
course
true
judge
imposes
sentence
receiving
jury
recommendation
never
meant
constitutional
error
proceedings
jury
simply
irrelevant
cf
messer
state
supra
justice
rehnquist
noted
well
settled
florida
law
jury
makes
recommendation
life
imprisonment
trial
judge
may
impose
death
sentence
unless
facts
suggesting
sentence
death
clear
convincing
virtually
reasonable
person
differ
tedder
state
barclay
florida
plurality
opinion
similarly
trial
judge
disturb
jury
recommendation
death
unless
appear
strong
reasons
believe
reasonable
persons
agree
recommendation
see
leduc
state
cert
denied
given
vacuous
argue
prior
references
judge
sentencer
somehow
imply
error
jury
affect
ultimate
sentence
equally
vacuous
suggest
thatour
conclusion
espinosa
jury
least
part
co
sentencer
source
case
decided
three
weeks
earlier
ante
citing
sochor
florida
earlier
case
cited
tedder
explaining
jury
constituent
element
sentencer
trial
judge
render
wholly
independent
judgment
must
accord
deference
jury
recommendation
sochor
third
suggests
trial
weighing
properly
narrowed
aggravators
migrators
sufficiently
independent
jury
cure
error
jury
consideration
vague
aggravator
ante
emphasis
omitted
suggestion
doubly
flawed
given
judge
instruction
jury
failed
narrow
hac
aggravator
reason
believe
appropriately
narrowed
factor
deliberations
importantly
even
apply
limiting
definition
sentencing
decision
made
without
benefit
untainted
recommendation
jury
florida
law
simply
resentenced
petitioner
without
regard
jury
tainted
recommendation
one
simply
conclude
error
made
practical
difference
petitioner
sentence
nothing
record
suggest
jury
recommended
life
sentence
judge
found
facts
suggesting
sentence
death
clear
convincing
virtually
reasonable
person
differ
tedder
requires
finds
statements
incases
like
walton
arizona
state
appellate
may
affirm
death
sentence
resulting
unconstitutionally
broad
aggravator
applying
limiting
definition
suggest
espinosa
new
rule
majority
analysis
confuses
appellate
application
limiting
definition
appellate
review
trial
judge
deference
tainted
jury
recommendation
judge
case
indicate
applying
limiting
definition
hac
factor
way
curing
discounting
error
jury
instruction
time
petitioner
sentencing
given
godfrey
tedder
rendered
petitioner
death
sentence
constitutionally
defective
matter
logic
law
nothing
new
espinosa
holding
jury
plays
central
role
florida
capital
sentencing
scheme
moreover
statistics
previously
summarized
demonstrate
equally
clear
matter
fact
erroneous
instructions
jury
sentencing
phase
trial
may
make
difference
life
death
sochor
florida
respectfully
dissent
cary
michael
lambrix
petitioner
harry
singletary
secretary
florida
department
corrections
writ
certiorari
appeals
eleventh
circuit
may
justice
dissenting
although
agree
much
reasoning
set
forth
part
ii
opinion
disagree
disposition
case
instead
vacate
judgment
appeals
remand
case
appeals
might
consider
procedural
bar
issue
first
instance
holds
general
practice
federal
habeas
consider
whether
relief
habeas
petitioner
requests
new
rule
teague
lane
resolving
state
argument
claim
procedurally
barred
ante
usually
federal
habeas
contentions
petitioner
claim
barred
state
procedural
grounds
petitioner
seeks
rely
new
rule
teague
consider
teague
question
procedural
bar
issue
resolved
petitioner
favor
recognizes
addressing
procedural
bar
issue
first
avoids
unnecessary
consideration
constitutional
questions
accords
fitting
respect
state
procedural
rules
indispensable
administration
criminal
justice
system
ante
much
opinion
agree
course
may
exceptions
rule
procedural
bar
issue
resolved
first
one
case
might
procedural
bar
question
excessively
complicated
teague
issue
easily
resolved
appeals
gave
reason
failure
consider
florida
determination
petitioner
claim
based
espinosa
florida
procedurally
barred
indeed
appeals
even
discuss
state
holding
let
alone
decide
resolution
procedural
bar
issue
inappropriate
case
see
reason
think
resolution
procedural
bar
question
especially
troublesome
see
reason
appeals
failure
give
priority
state
argument
independent
adequate
state
ground
barred
petitioner
espinosa
claim
accordingly
remand
case
appeals
resolve
procedural
bar
issue
points
appeals
better
suited
evaluating
matters
state
procedure
ante
view
premature
address
state
contention
petitioner
espinosa
claim
barred
teague
grounds
nevertheless
since
reaches
question
wish
express
agreement
justice
stevens
resolution
teague
issue
footnotes
lambrix
also
contends
trial
failed
apply
properly
narrowed
hac
aggravator
decline
consider
contention
fairly
within
question
presented
asked
whether
teague
lane
bars
relief
based
upon
espinosa
florida
pet
cert
see
rule
description
holding
espinosa
preceding
paragraph
text
clear
loss
explain
dissent
impression
accord
espinosa
novel
interpretation
constitutional
error
jury
instruction
automatically
render
defendant
sentence
unconstitutional
post
quoting
infra
sentence
phrase
quoted
dissent
wrenched
violently
word
precedes
omitted
discussing
holding
espinosa
indeed
even
mention
espinosa
theentire
paragraph
previous
subsequent
paragraphs
dissent
maintains
statement
proven
wrong
espinosa
citation
godfrey
georgia
tedder
state
post
wordplay
two
cases
called
controlling
authority
sense
two
propositions
established
instruction
sentencing
jury
fails
define
hac
aggravator
violates
eighth
amendment
florida
sentencing
judge
must
give
great
weight
jury
recommendation
among
givens
decision
espinosa
derived
assuredly
controlling
authority
sense
obviously
intend
compel
outcome
espinosa
answer
definitive
question
whether
jury
advisory
verdict
taints
trial
sentence
whether
indirect
weighing
invalid
factor
creates
potential
arbitrariness
direct
weighing
dissent
says
iven
judge
instruction
jury
failed
narrow
hac
aggravator
reason
believe
trial
judge
appropriately
narrowed
hac
factor
deliberations
post
cases
establish
always
reason
believe
consider
fully
adequate
trial
judges
presumed
know
law
apply
making
decisions
state
narrowed
definition
hac
aggravating
circumstance
presume
state
trial
judges
applying
narrower
definition
walton
arizona
without
abandoning
precedent
dissent
argue
ordinary
presumption
overcome
failure
instruct
factual
support
argument
questionable
judges
fail
instruct
juries
rules
law
aware
time
moreover
argument
correct
holding
espinosa
unnecessary
simply
said
dissent
us
say
failure
instruct
narrowing
construction
displayed
judge
ignorance
narrowing
construction
instead
course
espinosa
cited
passage
walton
quoted
espinosa
dissent
accuses
us
simply
ignoring
reasoning
tedder
post
course
done
see
supra
dissent
however
fails
discuss
indeed
even
mention
cases
interpreting
tedder
contradict
dissent
view
cases
florida
repeatedly
emphasizing
trial
judge
obligation
make
independent
assessment
weighing
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
dissent
relies
example
upon
florida
decision
riley
wainwright
see
post
decision
rendered
lambrix
conviction
became
final
hence
technically
relevant
subsequent
case
florida
summarized
jurisprudence
follows
case
law
contains
many
instances
trial
judge
override
jury
recommendation
life
upheld
notwithstanding
jury
recommendation
whether
life
imprisonment
death
judge
required
make
independent
determination
based
aggravating
mitigating
factors
moreover
procedure
previously
upheld
constitutional
challenge
grossman
state
emphasis
added
citations
omitted
clear
prosecutor
correctly
stated
law
florida
judge
sentencing
authority
jury
role
merely
advisory
burden
course
establish
statements
grossman
cases
rely
upon
accurate
later
determined
wrong
dissent
current
reading
tedder
correct
question
us
whether
reasonable
jurist
disagreed
dissent
interpretation
tedder
time
lambrix
conviction
treating
relevant
question
portion
precedent
vindicated
later
decisions
dissent
endues
jurist
prescience
reasonableness
stringer
black
souter
dissenting
dissent
thus
simply
wrong
stating
confused
appellate
application
limiting
construction
trial
deference
tainted
jury
recommendation
see
post
walton
indicated
precedents
provided
two
distinct
permissible
routes
satisfy
eighth
amendment
thesentencer
considered
vague
aggravator
finding
aggravator
proper
limiting
construction
independent
reweighing
circumstances
godfrey
course
held
georgia
outrageously
wantonly
vile
horrible
inhuman
aggravating
factor
failed
adequately
channel
jury
discretion
see
godfrey
found
heinous
atrocious
cruel
aggravator
unconstitutional
maynard
cartwright
subsequently
noted
application
godfrey
hac
instruction
create
new
rule
see
stringer
black
two
controlling
precedents
cited
espinosa
opinion
provided
sufficient
support
holding
thus
simply
mistaken
asserts
espinosa
purport
rely
upon
controlling
precedent
ante
tedder
course
isolated
decision
riley
wainwright
state
put
point
succinctly
jury
recommendation
upon
judge
must
rely
results
unconstitutional
procedure
entire
sentencing
process
necessarily
tainted
procedure
riley
relied
pre
tedder
decision
stating
advisory
opinion
jury
integral
part
death
sentencing
process
citing
lamadline
state
responding
dissent
ante
clause
quoted
intended
describe
understanding
holding
espinosa
relevance
portion
opinion
including
reliance
godfrey
maynard
opaque
best
also
relies
heavily
passage
opinion
walton
arizona
noting
trial
judge
failure
apply
narrowing
construction
invalid
aggravator
necessarily
require
state
appellate
vacate
death
sentence
based
factor
ante
florida
applied
tedder
numerous
cases
reverse
trial
judge
override
jury
life
sentence
see
wasko
state
goodwin
state
odom
state
cert
denied
neary
state
malloy
state
nothing
record
indicates
judge
recognized
jury
instruction
erroneous
sought
cure
error
weighing
process
finding
hac
aggravator
present
judge
merely
stated
facts
speak
app
matter
fact
jury
sentence
sentence
usually
imposed
florida
state
attached
appendix
brief
see
app
brief
respondent
setting
forth
data
concerning
capital
cases
reviewed
florida
cases
jury
recommended
death
penalty
none
cases
trial
judge
impose
lesser
sentence
cases
jury
recommended
life
sentence
one
cases
trial
judge
overrode
jury
recommended
life
sentence
imposed
death
sentence
overrides
however
florida
vacated
trial
judge
sentence
either
imposed
life
sentence
remanded
new
sentencing
hearing
two
conclusions
evident
first
jury
recommends
death
sentence
trial
judge
almost
certainly
impose
sentence
second
jury
recommends
life
sentence
although
overrides
sustained
occasionally
florida
courtwill
normally
uphold
jury
rather
judge
therefore
clear
practice
erroneous
instructions
jury
sentencing
phase
trial
may
make
difference
life
death
sochor
florida
footnotes
omitted