WPCН  LHQX//gbmBG(( He8n(@P A_7ٹ%@Gڭk G__^[AI]Uz%bFtPFTzҬ42>yr))p:%~O2SJ_UK)ln@@p+5i?wU` ʷZVj ȓ[Ύ#?0 %~:$#D',ˆ+䑾HEɋisP \x*|[⧼[_@_ӂ-xU*t,8d!;'Ӑz{̬sISԟ9vlb𪄺(]{F w"at}cy%QrrH>0T"̽4I֜ t,MI0\ EO6]ޠ,pHgIuޟ7f,zp^#3(`#!@U4Na % 0:U\8^ 'w@34s mf 1(UF 1 0-~| 0D>f Z; 4 U#F"N##U.''[+f- 0^./f0141f3~3165 8}?=f? 1"@@ 1A 1u@BEBUFCM@D<H 0cI,J"M 0wM"\NUF~NN 1PU8 x #  22      ׀BecauseinJohnson,  thejuryhadbeenunabletoreturnaunanimousverdict,theNevadaSupremeCourtconcludedthattheerrorwasnotharmless,anditvacatedthedeathsentence.#X4hXXX#XXXX4h#@XXl#XX@     36. ` TheMissouriSupremeCourtalsofoundthatitsdeath `  sentencingschemewasa hybridschemebecausethejudgeimposedthesentencewheneverthejurycouldnotreturnaunanimousverdict.ThatCourtexplainedthatinthosecircumstancesRing d  wasviolatedbecausethefirstthreestepsoftheMissouriprocedurefordeterminingdeatheligibility#X4hXXX7#XXXX4hhadnotbeendecided   beyondareasonabledoubtbyajury:Inthesecond,or"penalty"phase,thejuryisrequiredtobeinstructedtofollowthefourstepprocesssetoutinsection565.030.4:0 ` Thetriershallassessanddeclarethepunishmentatlifeimprisonmentwithouteligibilityforprobation,parole,orreleaseexceptbyactofthegovernor: ` `  0 ` (1)Ifthetrierdoesnotfindbeyondareasonabledoubtatleastoneofthestatutoryaggravatingcircumstancessetoutinsubsection2ofsection565.032;or ` `  0 ` (2)Ifthetrierdoesnotfindthattheevidence "$ inaggravationofpunishment,includingbutnotlimitedtoevidencesupportingthestatutoryaggravatingcircumstanceslistedinsubsection2ofsection565.032,warrantsimposingthedeathsentence;or ` `  0 ` (3)Ifthetrierconcludesthatthereisevidenceinmitigationofpunishment,includingbutnotlimitedtoevidencesupportingthestatutorymitigatingcircumstanceslistedinsubsection3ofsection565.032,whichissufficienttooutweightheevidenceinaggravationofpunishmentfoundbythetrier;or ` `  0 ` (4)Ifthetrierdecidesunderallofthecircumstancesnottoassessanddeclarethepunishmentatdeath. ` `   Id .Section565.030.4onitsfacerequiresthatsteps   1,2,3,and4bedeterminedagainstdefendantbeforeadeathsentencecanbeimposed. Id. ; see  _Whitfield_,837 x S.W.2d503,515(Mo.banc1992) . ^  Step1. Step1requiresthetrieroffacttofindthe &v presenceofoneormorestatutoryaggravatingfactorssetoutinsection565.032.2.BoththeStateand_Mr_._Whitfield_Ԁagreethatthisisafactthatnormallymustbefoundbythejuryinordertoimposeasentenceofdeath.TheStatecontendsthatsteps2,3,and4merelycallforthejurytogiveitssubjectiveopinionastowhetherthedeathpenaltyisappropriate,however,nottomakefindingsastowhetherthefactualpredicatesforimposingthedeathpenaltyarepresent.Iturgesthattheprinciplessetoutin Ring arenotoffended <"# evenifthejudgeratherthanthejurydeterminesthosethreesteps.ThisCourtdisagrees. Step2. Step2requiresthetrieroffact(whetherjury %!' orjudge)tofindthattheevidenceinaggravationofpunishment,includingbutnotlimitedtoevidencesupportingthestatutoryaggravatingfactors,warrantsimpositionofthedeathpenalty.Asnoted,theStatearguesthatthisstepmerelycallsforasubjectiveopinionbythetrieroffact,notafinding.But,theStatefailstonotethatthisCourtrejectedthisvery +&. argumentinitsopinionon_Mr_._Whitfield_'sappealofhisinitialconviction,inwhichitremandedforthenewtrialatissuehere.Inthatdecision,thisCourtheldthatstep2requiresa"findingoffactbythejury,notadiscretionarydecision." _Whitfield_,837 X S.W.2dat515 .Thisholdingissupportedbytheplain > languageofthestatute.Inordertofulfillitsduty,thetrieroffactisrequiredtomakeacasebycasefactualdeterminationbasedonalltheaggravatingfactsthetrieroffactfindsarepresentinthecase.Thisisnecessarilyadeterminationtobemadeonthefactsofeachcase.Accordingly,under Ring ,itisnot P  permissibleforajudgetomakethisfactualdetermination.Thejuryisrequiredtodetermine   whetherthestatutoryandother_aggravators_Ԁshownbytheevidencewarrantstheimpositionofdeath.... Step3. Instep3thejuryisrequiredtodetermine (x whethertheevidenceinmitigationoutweighstheevidenceinaggravationfoundinsteps1and2.Ifitdoes,thedefendantisnoteligiblefordeath,andthejurymustreturnasentenceoflifeimprisonment.WhiletheStateoncemorearguesthatthismerelycallsforthejurytoofferitssubjectiveanddiscretionaryopinionratherthantomakeafactualfinding,thisCourtagaindisagrees.Theanalysisundertakeninthreerecentdecisionsbyotherstatecourtsoflastresort,interpretingsimilarstatutes,isinstructive.In _Woldt_Ԁv.People,64P.3d > 256(Colo.2003) ,theSupremeCourtofColorado $t reversedthedeathsentencesoftwocapitaldefendantsafterdeterminingthatColorado'sthreejudgecapitalsentencingstatutewasunconstitutionalinlightof Ring .Colorado'sdeathpenaltystatute,like !" Missouri's,requiresthefactfindertocompleteafourstepprocessbeforedeathmaybeimposed.First,atleastonestatutory_aggravator_Ԁmustbefound.Second,whethermitigatingfactorsexistmustbedetermined.Third,mitigatingfactorsmustnotoutweightheaggravatingfactors.Finally,whetherdeathistheappropriatepunishmentisconsidered.TheSupremeCourtofColoradodescribedthefirstthreeofthesefourstepsasfindingsoffactthatare"prerequisitestoafindingbythethreejudgepanelthatadefendantwaseligiblefordeath." _Woldt_,64 +&. P.3dat265 .Itnotedthatstatesaresometimesgrouped  into"weighingstates"thatrequirethejurytoweightheaggravatingcircumstancesagainstthoseinmitigationinarrivingattheirdeterminationofpunishment,and"nonweighingstates."Itexplainedthat,whileinsteps1,2,and3thejuryispermittedtoconsiderandweigh_aggravators_Ԁandmitigators,andtothatextentColorado'sprocessislikethatusedinweighingstates,Coloradoisanonweighingstateinthat,instep4,inwhichthejurydecideswhethertoimposedeathortogivealifesentence,thejuryispermittedtoconsideralloftheevidencewithoutbeingrequiredtogivespecialsignificancetotheweightofstatutory_aggravators_Ԁormitigators. Id.at26364 .   Thislaststepthus"affordsthesentencingbodyunlimiteddiscretiontosentencethedefendanttolifeimprisonmentinsteadofdeath." Id.at265 .Because .~  Colorado'sdeathpenaltystatuterequiredathreejudgepaneltomakethefirstthreeofthesefindings,thestatutewasdeclaredunconstitutional. Id.at26667 .  Similarly,in Johnsonv.State,59P.3d450(Nev. | 2002) , Nevada'sSupremeCourtconsideredthe b constitutionalityofitscapitalsentencingschemeinlightof Ring .Itssentencingschemeprovidesfora l threejudgepaneltodeterminepunishmentifthejuryisunabletodoso. Johnson notedthatNevada ( "statutorylawrequirestwodistinctfindingstorenderadefendantdeatheligible:'thejuryorthepanelofjudgesmayimposeasentenceofdeathonlyifitfindsatleastoneaggravatingcircumstanceandfurtherfindsthattherearenomitigatingcircumstancessufficienttooutweightheaggravatingcircumstanceorcircumstancesfound.'" Johnson,59P.3dat460   ! (citationomitted). Johnson determinedtherequisitestatutoryfindingthat d#$ themitigatingcircumstancesarenotsufficienttooutweightheaggravatingcircumstancesisatleast"inpartafactualdetermination,notmerelydiscretionaryweighing." Id.at460 .Itheldthat,asaresult,the &"( ruleannouncedin Ring requiredajuryratherthana '#) judgetodeterminethemitigatingaswellastheaggravatingfactorissues. Id. n)$+  Finally,onremandfromtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt,theSupremeCourtofArizonarejectedthe ,P'. state'scontentionthattherequirementofArizonalawτthatthecourtweighmitigatingcircumstancesagainstaggravatingcircumstancesdidnotrequireafactualdetermination,stating:0 ` Inboththesupersededandcurrentcapitalsentencingschemes,thelegislatureassignedto   thesamefactfinderresponsibilityforconsideringbothaggravatingandmitigatingfactors,aswellasfordeterminingwhetherthemitigatingfactors,whencomparedwiththe_aggravators_,callforleniency.Neitherajudge, P  underthesupersededstatutes,northejury,underthenewstatutes,canimposethedeathpenaltyunlessthatentityconcludesthatthemitigatingfactorsarenotsufficientlysubstantialtocallforleniency._A.R.S._Ԁ[sections]13703.E(Supp.2002)and13703.F(Supp.2001).TheprocessinvolvedindeterminingwhethermitigatingfactorsprohibitimposingthedeathpenaltyplaysanimportantpartinArizona'scapitalsentencingscheme. ` `   RingII,65P.3dat943 (emphasisadded).TheCourt ^ continued:0 ` WewillnotspeculateabouthowtheState'sproposal[toallowthejudgetomakethesefindings]wouldimpactthisessentialprocess._Clemons_Ԁv.Mississippi,494U.S.738,754,110 "r S.Ct.1441,1451,108_L.Ed_.2d725(1990) ('Insome N situations,astateappellatecourtmayconcludethatpeculiaritiesinacasemakeappellate...harmlesserroranalysisextremelyspeculativeorimpossible.');seealsoJohnsonv. d!" Nevada,59P.3d450(Nev.2002)(asappliedto @"# Nevadalaw,Ring...requires[a]jurytoweigh #l$ mitigatingandaggravatingfactorsunderNevada'sstatuterequiringthefactfindertofurtherfindwhethermitigatingcircumstancesaresufficienttooutweightheaggravatingcircumstances). ` `   Id. Accordingly,theCourtheldthat,evenwerethe &(v#* presenceofastatutory_aggravator_Ԁconcededornotcontested,_resentencing_Ԁwouldberequiredunlessthecourtfoundthatthefailureofthejurytomakethese factualfindingswasharmlessontheparticularfacts +&. ofthecase. Id. Thiswasanecessaryresultof   applying Ring's holdingthat"[_c]apital_  defendants...areentitledtoajurydeterminationofanyfactonwhichthelegislatureconditionsanincreaseintheirmaximumpunishment." Ring,536U.S. (x at589 .  ^ Missouri'ssteps1,2,and3aretheequivalentofthefirstthreefactualdeterminationsrequiredunderColorado'sdeathpenaltystatute,sothat,asinColorado,thejuryistoldtofindwhethertherearemitigatingandaggravatingcircumstancesandtoweighthemtodecidewhetherthedefendantiseligibleforthedeathpenalty.ThesethreestepsarealsosimilartotheaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstancefindingsrequiredunderNevadaandArizonalaw.Asinthosestates,thesethreestepsrequirefactualfindingsthatareprerequisitestothetrieroffact'sdeterminationthatadefendantisdeatheligible.Statev._Whitfield_,2003WL21386276(Mo.June17,2003)  (footnoteomitted). L Uh((L  37. ` ThethreestepsinFloridasstatute,likethestepsin N Missouri,also requirefactualfindingsthatareprerequisitestothetrieroffactsdeterminationthatadefendantisdeatheligible.Step1intheFloridaprocedurerequiresdeterminingwhetheratleastoneaggravatingcircumstanceexists.AsinMissouri,Colorado,Indiana,Delaware,Arizona,andNevada,thisstepinvolvesafactualdeterminationwhichisaprerequisitetorenderingthedefendantdeatheligible.  38. ` Step2intheFloridaprocedurerequiresdetermining ^&!(  whether sufficientaggravatingcircumstancesexisttojustify  (Z#* impositionofdeath. 0 z #  23      ׀MissourisStep2isindistinguishable,   requiringadeterminationofwhethertheevidenceofallaggravatingcircumstances warrantsimposingthedeathsentence.Thisstepisobviouslynottheultimatestepofdeterminingwhetherdeathwillornotbeimposedbecauseotherstepsremain.Rather,inFloridaaswellasMissouri,thisstepinvolvesafactualdeterminationwhichisaprerequisitetorenderingadefendantdeatheligible.  39. ` Step3intheFloridaprocedurerequiresdetermining `  whether thereareinsufficientmitigatingcircumstancestooutweightheaggravatingcircumstances.MissourisandColoradosStep3,aswellasNevadasandArizonasStep2,areidentical,requiringadeterminationofwhethermitigatingcircumstancesoutweighaggravatingcircumstances.Again,thisstepisnottheultimatedeterminationofwhetherornottoimposedeathbecauseanadditionalstepremains.Rather,inFloridaaswellastheseotherstates,thisstepinvolvesafactualdeterminationwhichisaprerequisitetorenderingadefendantdeatheligible.  40. ` InFlorida,asinMissouriandtheotherstates t$& discussedin_Whitfield_,the_sentencer_Ԁdoesnotconsiderthe  &p!( ultimatequestionofwhetherornottoimposedeathuntilthe '#* eligibilitystepsarecompleted.Afterthefirstthreesteps,theFloridastatutedirectsthejurytodetermine, [_b]ased_Ԁontheseconsiderations,whetherthedefendantshouldbesentencedtolifeimprisonmentordeath.Section921.141(2)(c),Fla.Stat.Thestructureofthestatuteclearlyestablishesthatthestepswhichoccurbeforethisdeterminationarenecessarytomakethedefendanteligibleforthisultimatedetermination,thatis,torenderthedefendant#X4hXXXy#XXXX4hԀdeatheligible.#@XXy#XX@ d  #@XX2#  XX@41. ` Thequestion#X4hXXXa2#XXXX4hwhichRingv.Arizonadecidedwaswhat `  factsconstitute elementsincapitalsentencingproceedings.FollowingtheSupremeCourtsdecisionin_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey, h 530U.S.466(2000),_Mr_.Ringraisedan_Apprendi_challengetohis d deathsentence.Inaddressingthatchallenge,theArizonaSupremeCourtstatedthattheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsdescriptionofArizonascapitalsentencingschemecontainedinWaltonv.Arizona,497U.S.639(1990),wasincorrectand  providedthecorrectconstructionofthescheme.Ring,122S. p  Ct.at2436.Baseduponthiscorrectconstruction,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtthendeterminedthatWalton cannotsurvive "$ thereasoningof_Apprendi_.Ring,122S.Ct.at2440. t$&   42. ` ThebulkoftheRingopinionaddresseshowtodetermine  &p!( whetherafactisan elementofacrime.SeeRing,122S.Ct. '#* at243743.ThequestioninRingwasnotwhethertheSixth x)$, Amendmentrequiresajurytodecideelements.Thathasbeena $+t&. givensincetheBillofRightswasadopted.Thequestionwaswhatfactsareelements.JusticeThomasexplainedthisinhisconcurringopinionin_Apprendi_: X  ` Thiscaseturnsontheseeminglysimplequestionofwhatconstitutesa crime.UndertheFederalConstitution, theaccusedhastheright(1) tobeinformedofthenatureandcauseoftheaccusation(thatis,thebasisonwhichheisaccusedofacrime),(2)tobe heldtoanswerforacapital,orotherwiseinfamouscrimeonlyonanindictmentorpresentmentofagrandjury,and(3)tobetriedby animpartialjuryoftheStateanddistrictwhereinthecrimeshallhavebeencommitted._Amdts_.5and6.SeealsoArt.III,[Sec.]2,cl.3( TheTrialofallCrimes...shallbebyJury).WiththeexceptionoftheGrandJuryClause,see_Hurtado_Ԁv.California,110U.S.516,538.   ..(1884),theCourthasheldthattheseprotectionsapplyinstateprosecutions.Herringv.NewYork,422 h U.S.853,857,andn.7...(1975).Further,theCourthasheldthatdueprocessrequiresthatthejuryfindbeyondareasonabledoubteveryfactnecessarytoconstitutethecrime.Inre_Winship_,397U.S.358,364  ...(1970). ` Alloftheseconstitutionalprotectionsturnon B determiningwhichfactsconstitutethe crimethatis,whichfactsarethe elementsor ingredientsofacrime.Inorderforanaccusationofacrime & (whetherbyindictmentorsomeotherform)tobeproperunderthecommonlaw,andthusproperunderthecodificationofthecommonlawrightsintheFifthandSixthAmendments,itmustallegeallelementsofthatcrime;likewise,inorderforajurytrialofacrimetobeproper,allelementsofthecrimemustbeprovedtothejury(and,under_Winship_,provedbeyonda #% reasonabledoubt)._Apprendi_,120S.Ct.at236768(Thomas,J.,concurring) 8&!( (emphasisadded).JusticeThomasexplainedthatcourtshave longhadtoconsiderwhichfactsareelements,butthatoncethatquestionisanswered, itisthenasimplemattertoapply <+&. thatanswertowhateverconstitutionalrightmaybeatissueinacasehere,_Winship_andtherighttotrialbyjury.Id.at \ 2368.  43. ` Theessenceofcriminallawisthedefinitionofthe   offense.Jonesv.UnitedStates,526U.S.227(1999),construed `  thefederalstatuteatissueinthatcase,andstatedthatfactswhichincreasethemaximumpunishmentforanoffenseareelementsoftheoffense._Apprendi_appliedthewellestablishedrulethat d  elementsmustbefoundbyajuryanddeterminedthatthesentencingfactoridentifiedbytheNewJerseylegislaturewasinfactanelement.Ringmerelyheldthatbaseduponthe h clarificationoftheArizonastatuteprovidedbytheArizonaSupremeCourt,aggravatingcircumstancesinArizonawereelementssubjecttotheSixthAmendmentrighttoajurytrial.  44. ` Ringsrequirementthatjuries,notjudges,findthe h elementsofthechargeisderivedfromancientprinciplesoflaw: Theprinciplethatthejurywerethejudgesoffactandthejudgesthedecidersoflawwasstatedasanestablishedprincipleasearlyas1628byCoke.See1E.Coke,InstitutesoftheLaws "$ ofEngland155b(1628).Jones,526U.S.at247.Waltondidnot t$& contravenethoseprinciplesbutsimplymisreadtheArizonastatute.TheRingdecisionmerelyrejuvenatedthelongstanding '#* rulewhichWaltontemporarilyrejected. x)$,   45. ` TheFramersoftheBillofRightsincludedtheSixth $+t&. Amendmentsguaranteeofarighttojurytrialasanessentialprotectionagainstgovernmentoppression. Fearofuncheckedpower,sotypicalofourStateandFederalGovernmentsinotherrespects,foundexpressioninthecriminallawinthisinsistenceuponcommunityparticipationinthedeterminationofguiltorinnocence.Duncanv.Louisiana,391U.S.145,156(1968).  \  Onlybymaintainingtheintegrityofthe_factfinding_Ԁfunctiondoesthejury standbetweentheaccusedandapotentiallyarbitraryorabusiveGovernmentthatisincommandofthecriminalsanction.UnitedStatesv.MartinLinenSupplyCo.,  430U.S.564,572(1977).Thus,theadoptionofthejurytrialrightintheBillofRightsestablishestheFoundersrecognitionthatajurytrialismorereliablethanabenchtrial.  46. ` JustasJusticeThomasexplainedin_Apprendi_,therewas  noquestioninRingthatthejurytrialrightappliesto 0 elements.ThedisputeinRinginvolvedwhatwasanelement. , Thus,thequestioninRingisakintoastatutoryconstruction   issue,and retroactivityisnotatissue._Fiore_Ԁv.White,531 4!" U.S.225,226(2001);_Bunkley_Ԁv.Florida,123S.Ct.2020,2023 "0$ (2003).Thatis,theSixthAmendmentrighttohaveajurydecideelementsisabedrock,indisputableright._Mr_.WrightwasentitledtothisSixthAmendmentprotectionatthetimeofhistrial.TheSixthAmendmentguaranteesnotonlytherighttoajurytrial,butalsotherightofconfrontation.Ringsimply <+&. clarifiedthatfactsrenderingadefendanteligibleforadeathsentenceareelementsofcapitalmurderandthereforesubjecttotheSixthAmendmentguaranteesthatareapplicabletothestates.  47. ` TherulinginRingconcernsanissueofsubstantive   criminallaw.InconcludingthattheSixthAmendmentrequiresthatthejury,ratherthanthejudge,determinetheexistenceofaggravatingfactors,theSupremeCourtdescribedaggravatingfactorsas thefunctionalequivalentofanelementofagreateroffense.Ring,122S.Ct.at2243(citing_Apprendi_Ԁv.New `  Jersey,530U.S.466,494,n.19(2000)).Ringclarifiedthe  elementsofthe greateroffenseofcapitalmurder.Asexplainedabove,Ringdidnotdecideaproceduralquestion(i.e., ,| whethertheSixthAmendmentrequiresthatjuriesdecideelements),butasubstantivequestion(whatisanelement).Thus,retroactiveapplicationisrequiredunder_Bousley_Ԁv.United 0 States,523U.S.614(1998),becausetherulingaddressesa , matterofsubstantivecriminallaw,notaproceduralrule.#X4hXXXu3#XXXX4hԀThis   Courtoverlookedthiswhendenying_Mr_.Wrightspetition.  48. ` Inrejecting_Mr_.WrightsargumentthatthisCourt "<$ erroneouslyfoundtheconsiderationofanimproperaggravatingcircumstancetobeharmless,thisCourtoverlookedthedecisionin_Esparza_Ԁv.Mitchell,310F.3dat42223( TheStatesargument '@#* thattheerrorherecanbeexcusedasharmlesswouldleadtotheconclusionthatany,orall,elementsrequiredbyacapital H+&. sentencingsystemmaybesuppliedbyjudgesratherthanthejury). L 8eh((L  49. ` ThisCourtoverlookedthepostRingjurisprudencefrom X otherstateandfederalcourts.ThesedecisionsdemonstratethatthisCourthaserroneouslydenied_Mr_.WrightsargumentsthathewasdeprivedofhisSixthAmendmentrightsathis_resentencing_andthathisdeathsentencewasunconstitutionallyimposed.#X4hXXXW#XXXX4h   #X4hXXX\#XXXX4h  WHEREFORE, _Mr_.Wright,byandthrough undersigned_counsel , _ d  respectfullyrequeststhisCourtgrantarehearingandreconsidertheopinionofJuly3,2003.#X4hXXX-]#XXXX4h  IHEREBYCERTIFYthatatruecopyoftheforegoingMotion h forRehearinghasbeenfurnishedbyUnitedStatesMail,firstclasspostageprepaid,toDouglasSquire,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,444SeabreezeBlvd.,Suite500,DaytonaBeach,FL32118#X4hXXXs^#XXXX4h, l onJuly25,2003.#X4hXXX_#XXXX4h   h    `     h   Respectfullysubmitted,    `     h      p      x      `     h   ?UI' hdEE h? F ! s U    `     h   MARTINJ.MCCLAIN   `     h   SpecialAssistantCCRCSouth  0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#FloridaBarNo.0754773 (#(#    `     h   497_Stonehouse_ԀRd.  0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#Tallahassee,FL32301 (#(#   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#(305)984 78  8 2 3 44 32  (#(#    `     h   OFFICEOFTHECAPITALCOLLATERAL  0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#REGIONALCOUNSELFORTHE (#(#   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#SOUTHERNREGION (#(#    `     h   101NE3rdAve.,Suite400   `     h   FortLauderdale,FL33301   `     h   (954)7131284   `     h   Counselfor_Mr_.Wright  ',w'0  #X4hXXX3`#XXXX4h  ',w'0  x  x  x  x  x  x  ',w'0     `     h   򀀀 2    `     h   MARTINJ.MCCLAIN   `     h   AttorneyatLaw   `     h   FloridaBarNo.0754773   `     h   497_Stonehouse_ԀRd.   `     h   Tallahassee,FL32301   `     h   (305)9848344   `     h   Counselfor_Mr_.Wright #X4hXXXh#