WPC( , Ӳ $(]=#12JA:_2E4<Ɠb;\DaIJ>EX!o-}GEbRq ڛijDJ&s݉0W;mws #vȱ',>$F}0qD CVX%YyDjmG j˝M2`E@REV$B?$gЏ9t*XW%c#fRvw~dvf@chnV|N~0}lX%6]~#UcN % 0(U.F!UFg^ w4 mU&81 0l1 0D 0U.NUF0!v!`H#H#H#H#H#H#H#H#H#H#H#H#H#H#H#H#H#H#H#H#H#H#H#H#H#H#%N%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Z% & Z)&&&&&&&&&&&& Z&& Z'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'q'E'''''  ' 0='''''' Z'2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2( ZO((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( B(hp LaserJet 1300 PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular<4 9Z+.Courier New RegularѮ.0s .dz/yFiles3|xU<4 9Z+ Courier New  $    1    _XEXXXMoreover,Mr._Mordenti_Ԁwasnotjailedwhileawaitingtrial.  Hewasoutonbond.((3$ !      0  (#$  0  .8T "toc 2   `         >4X` hp x (#>    $    2    _XEXXXIfyouhavethebenefit,youarelessinneedofthe  benefit.Someonewhocannotbechargedwithcrimeshasless  reasontocurryfavorwiththeprosecutorthanawitnesswhois \ subjecttoprosecution.See XEXXXEDavisv.Alaska,415U.S.308 2 (1974)#XEXX XE#.<6X9`(Courier D $    4    _XEXXXAsdiscussedin_Whitfield_,theColoradoSupremeCourthas  alsodeterminedthatthefactualdeterminationsmadeinaseries  stepsbeforetheimpositionofadeathsentenceareelementsof \ capitalmurderwithinthemeaningoftheSixthAmendment._Woldt_ 2 v.People,64P.3d256(Colo.2003). X .Courier New Regular  $    5    _XEXXXItalsoconflictswithdecisionsbytheColoradoSupreme  CourtandtheArizonaSupremeCourt._Woldt_Ԁv.People,64P.3dat  265;Statev.Ring,#XXXXES# XEXXX65P.3dat943#XXX XEx# V $    3    _XEXXXTheArizonaSupremeCourtwhileconsideringwhetherRing  errorwasharmlesscitedJohnsonwhileconcludingthatthe  factualdeterminationastowhetherthemitigatingfactors \ prohibittheimpositionofadeathsentenceissubjecttothe 2 righttotrialbyjury.Statev.Ring,65P.3d915,94243 X (Ariz.2003).#XXXXES# . Garron v. State, 528 So. 2d 353, 358 (Fl1 _Nowitzke v. State, 572 So. 2d 1346 (Fla.1 _Drake v. Kemp, 762 F.2d 1449, 1458-61 (11 _Potts v. Zant, 734 F.2d 526, 536 (11th C1 _($0 Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 396 (19851 _%Wilson v. Wainwright, 474 So.2d 1162 (Fl1 _ d !  _ XEXXX@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFFLORIDA  @!CASENO.SC022643 x  ?}'4 pdE41p?  2 @"MICHAEL_MORDENTI_,  = 0p x (#X0@*  Petitioner,    E.` hp x (#XE@tt)v. }  @!MICHAELW.MOORE, E  @` ` Secretary,FloridaDepartmentofCorrections, )y  0p x (#X0@*  Respondent. A E.` hp x (#XE ?}'4pdE4p?   @0 0 PETITIONERSREPLYTORESPONSETO  @ PETITIONFORWRITOFHABEASCORPUS f  ?}'4pdE4p?   p    `     h   MARTINJ._MCCLAIN_ #/&    `     h   AppointedRegistryCounsel $ '    `     h   FloridaBarNo.0754773 % (    `     h   141_N.E._Ԁ30thStreet &!)    `     h   WiltonManors,FL33334 o'"*    `     h   (305)9848344 S(#+    `     h   COUNSELFORPETITIONER  *k%-   +%'/ _ 8EXXdd8#XXXXE.#XEXXX@  PRELIMINARYSTATEMENT   #XXXXE # XEXXX  Citationsinthisbrieftodesignatereferencestothe D records,followedbytheappropriatepagenumber,areasfollows:#XXX XE # XEXXX (   R.___0 0 (# (#0h(#(#RecordondirectappealtothisCourt;l h(#h(#   PCR.___0  0h(#(#Postconvictionrecordonappeal Ph(#h(#   PCT.___0  0h(#(#Evidentiaryhearingtranscript  h(#h(#   DEx.__0  0h(#(#Defenseexhibitsenteredatthe (x  evidentiaryhearingandmadepartof B  thepostconvictionrecordonappeal. h(#h(#    `   SEx.__0  0h(#(#Stateexhibitsenteredatthe P  evidentiaryhearingj h(#h(#   Allothercitationswillbeselfexplanatoryorwill  otherwisebeexplained.#XXX XE # XEXXX h #XXX XE&#XEXXX B @  STATEMENTOFTHECASE  &   TheInitialandReplyBriefsfiledinMordentiv.State, j CaseNo.SC021159,shouldbeconsideredinconjunctionwithMr. N Mordentishabeaspetitionandthisreplyasthosepleadings  provideadditionalcontextandbackgroundtotheissuespresented &v herein.  ! @" ARGUMENTINREPLY  N # #XXXXEt#XEXXX@HH' CLAIMI  !2% ` `  PLAINANDFUNDAMENTALERROROCCURREDON v#' DIRECTAPPEALWHENTHISCOURTWASMISINFORMED @$( REGARDINGEVIDENCEINTHECASEANDMADE  %Z ) RULINGSACCORDINGTOTHATMISINFORMATION. %$!* APPELLATECOUNSELALSORENDEREDINEFFECTIVE &!+ ASSISTANCEOFCOUNSELINPROVIDINGTHISCOURT h'", WITHINCORRECTFACTS.MR.MORDENTIWAS 2(#- DENIEDHISCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTTOARELIABLE (L$. DIRECTAPPEALASARESULT.  )%/ ` '` 5C  Inthis#XXXXE#XEXXXԀCourtSopiniondenyingMr.Mordentisdirect $,t'2 appeal,#XXXXE# XEXXXthisCourtfoundtheadmissionofBarnestestimonytobe  error,butruledthat theeliminationofthecellmates D testimonywouldnothavechangedtheoutcome.Mordentiv. ( State,630So.2dat1085.#XXX XE#XEXXXԀ#XXXXE# XEXXXClearly,thisCourtwasmisledbythe l  StateastowhoHoraceBarneswasandhisrelationshipwithMr.  P Mordenti. HewasnotacellmateofMr.Mordenti. Hewasabank    robberwhowasapprehendedandprosecutedbyfederalauthorities (x  asaresultoftheassistanceprovidedbyMr.Mordenti.#XXX XE&#XEXXXMr.   Mordentiarguedinhishabeaspetitionthat [r]#XXXXE#XEXXXelianceuponthis P  incorrectinformationconstitutesplainerrorandfundamental 4 errornotsubjecttoharmlessanalysis.#XXXXEl#XEXXXFortheproposition x thatfundamentalerrorisnotsubjecttoharmlesserroranalysis,  \ Mr.MordenticitedReedv.State,837So.2d366,36970(Fla.  2002),whereinthisCourtstated, [f]undamentalerrorisnot 4 subjecttoharmlesserroranalysis.Yet,despitethisCourts  statementinReed,theStateinitsResponsecharacterizesMr. \ Mordentis contentionismeritlessandatorneartheborder @  separatingtheinsubstantialfromthefrivolous.Responseat6. "   AnotherwaytoviewMr.Mordentiscontentionisthatthe !h$ errorwasstructuralinnature.#XXXXEM# XEXXXCertainconstitutionalerror "& constituting structuraldefectsintheconstitutionofthetrial @$( mechanism,havebeenfoundto defyanalysisbyharmlesserror %$!* standards.Arizonav.Fulminante,499U.S.279,309(1991). h'", Structuraldefects,subjecttoautomaticreversalhavebeenfound (L$. wheretherehasbeena completedenialofcounsel,a biased *%0 trialjudge, racialdiscriminationin[the]selectionof[the] $,t'2 grandjury,the denialofselfrepresentationattrial,the   denialofapublictrial,anda defectivereasonabledoubt D instruction.Nederv.UnitedStates,119S.Ct.1827,1833 ( (1999). l  #XXX XE#XEXXX  Inthedirectappeal,infindingtheidentifiederror  P harmless,thisCourtmisunderstoodwhoHoraceBarneswaswhile    rulingthathistestimonythatMr.Mordentiintroducedhimselfby (x  #XXXXEf!# XEXXXlettingBarnes knowthathewasinthemob(R.747)was   harmless.#XXX XE"#XEXXXԀTheeliminationofthistestimonyinfactwasnot P  harmless,orinconsequential,astheStateinitsAnswerBrief 4 indicateswasthebasisofthisCourtsconclusionnottoreverse x foranewtrial.AnswerBrief,CaseNo.021159,at36( The  \ lowercourtconcludedthatitwasunnecessarytoexaminethe  contentionthatthestateimproperlyinducedthetestimonyof 4 HoraceBarneswhosubsequentlystatedthatMordentihadmob  connections,byprovidingundisclosedbenefitstoBarnesand \ Leslie sincethisCourtondirectappealhadfoundBarnes @  testimonytobeinconsequential .)(emphasisadded).Clearly " then,thecircuitcourtandtheStatehaveinterpretedthis !h$ Courtsdirectappealopinionasconstitutingafindingthat "& HoraceBarnestestimonywasinconsequential.Giventhatfact @$( notmentionedbytheStateinitsResponsetothehabeas %$!* petition,thisCourtsconclusionwaserroneous. h'",   ThetestimonywasalynchpinoftheStatescase.The (L$. trialprosecutorhadexplaineditssignificanceontherecord  *%0 whenthedefensecounselaskedforanewtrialonthebasisof  thetestimony:#XXXXEF##XEXXX D ` Ithinkitsrelevantforthereasonsallegedatthe ( timebecauseitgoestoshowthathisassociationwith  anenterprisethatwouldallowhimtogetsomeoneat l  shortnoticesocorroboratesGailMordentisversions 6  ofhowthecrimeoccurredbecauseaccordingtoGail  P Mordenti,themorningofthecrimeiswhenithadto    havebeenplannedunbenounced[sic]toher,butthat    phonecallthatwasmadebyLarryRoystonfromT&Ds ^   AutoandMarinewhereshewasworkingtoMichael (x  Mordentimusthavebeenthepivotalconversationand B  thenthateveninghestherewithsomebodyelse.So   thatwenttocorroborateortoshowthathehadthe   meanstocommitthiscrimeortohaveaccesstosomeone P  else.) j  ` )(R.1557)(emphasisadded).#XXXXE`)#XEXXXԀCertainly,corroborationofGails  testimonywasessentialtotheStatesefforttoobtaina B conviction.#XXXXE-# XEXXXTheimportanceofGailscredibilityisrevealedby & theprosecutorsclosingargument.Attheoutsetoftheclosing, j theprosecutorsaid: N `  So,reallytheonlyissueinthiscaseiswhether  ornotMichaelMordentiisthemaninvolved. \  MichaelMordentiistheonewhoconspiredwith &v LarryRoystonandcausedThelmaRoystonsdeathonJune @  7th,1989.TheonlylawthatImgoingtospecifically  ! discusswithyouthatisimportantforyoutolistento " isthejudgeisgoingtotellyouthatajurormay N # believeordisbelieveanyorallofthetestimonyofa !h$ witness,andthatsyoursolejob. !2%  So,justthefactthatsomeonecomesinhereand "& statesunderoaththatsomethinghappeneddoesntmean v#' thatyouhavetobelieveit.Itsyourjobtojudge @$( thecredibilityofthewitnesses.  %Z )  AndIhopeduringthistrialIveassistedyouin %$!* yourjob,andassistedyouinevaluatingthe &!+ credibilityofthewitnesseswhohavecomeand h'", testifiedunderoath. 2(#- ` //(R.117778).Theprosecutorsinitialclosingendedwithan )%/ argumentthatthecasecamedowntoaquestionofwhowastelling Z+&1 thetruth,GailMordentiMilliganorMichaelMordenti:  ` TheactionsofGailMordentishowyouthatshes D tellingthetruth,andtheactionsofMichaelMordenti ^ inhisrepeateddenialsofeverknowingorevenhearing ( ofLarryRoyston, showyoubeyondanyreasonabledoubt  thatshestellingthetruth . l  ` 55#XXX XE.# XEXXX(R.1201)(emphasisadded).#XXX XE7#XEXXXԀ  P   InfurtheranceofherefforttobolsterGailscredibility,    #XXXXE7#XEXXXtheprosecutorinherclosingreplayedthetapeofGailsphone (x  calltoMr.MordentithatwasmadeasanagentoftheStateon   March8,1990.Beforereplayingthetape,theprosecutortold P  thejurytolistenbecause hesverycageyonthatphone 4 conversation,heneveradmitsanythingflatout,but youcanread x betweenthelines ,andyoucanseefromwhathesaysandhowhe  \ saysitthathesinvolved. Andheknowswhatsgoingon,and  hesconcerned (R.1196)(emphasisadded). 4   Duringthetapedconversationthatwasintroducedinto  evidenceattrial,thefollowingexchangeoccurred: \ `  [GAIL]:Well,Michael,Ivegotasubpoenafrom @  theStateAttorneysOffice.Imean,werenotyou  ! know,theyrenotplayinggameshere.Imean,youknow " Є N #  [MR.MORDENTI]:Whatdoyouwantmetosay?I !h$ dontknowwhattotellyou. Iwasjusttalkingtomy !2% friend .Hessittingrightherenow.Hetoldmethat "& theyarealsogonnasubpoenaMichael[Milligan]. v#'  [GAIL]:Michaelwho? @$(  [MR.MORDENTI]:YourMichael[Milligan].  %Z )  [GAIL]:MyMichael? %$!*  [MR.MORDENTI]:ThatSwhatIheard. &!+  [GAIL]:Theyregoingtosubpoenahimforwhat? h'",  [MR.MORDENTI]: ThatswhatIheard . 2(#-  [GAIL]:Oh,Michael,Iamreallyupsetaboutthis, (L$. youknow. )%/  [MR.MORDENTI]:Staycool.Theresnothingto *%0 worryabout.Youdidntdoanything. Z+&1  [GAIL]:Well,yeah,iftheysubpoenaMichael, $,t'2 Michaelscrazy.  @,D*** z  [GAIL]:Now,(sigh)whatifwhatifyeah, D butwhatifyouknow,Idontknow.Whatifthey ^ haveinformationthatI (  [MR.MORDENTI]: Theyhavenothing .   [GAIL]:Theyhavenothing? l   [MR.MORDENTI]: Nothing.  6   [GAIL]: Thatswhatyourfriendsays ?  P  [MR.MORDENTI]:Theyreonafishingexpedition,    asusual.     [GAIL]:Youresure? ^    [MR.MORDENTI]:Theypositive.Theyfigured (x  ЄIdontwanttoosaytoomuchonthisphone.Id B  ratherwhydontyoumeetmeatthesaletonight,   andIlltellyoueverythingpointblank.   ` <<(PCT.105556,1060)(emphasisadded).#XXXXE8#XEXXX j    Astheprosecutorclearlytoldthecircuitcourt,her  strategywasto#XXXXEE#XEXXXcorroborateGailMordentisversionsofhowthe B crimeoccurredbyhavingthejurybelieveMr.Barnestestimony & thatMr.Mordentiwasinthemobandtoreadbetweenthelines j andseethatascorroborationofGailstestimonyandan N explanationforMr.Mordentiscommentsinthetaped  conversation. &v #XXXXEF# XEXXX  Barnesinfacttestifiedtomorethanmerelythe mob  ! comment.Hetestifiedthathewasfederallyincarceratedasa N # resultofafederalprosecutioninTampa(R.746).Hetestified !2% thathewasreceivingnoconsiderationforhistestimonyandthat v#' hewasnot promisedanythingforhistestimony(R.746).He  %Z ) testifiedthatheknewMichaelMordenti,andheidentifiedhimin &!+ thecourtroom(R.746).HetestifiedthathemetMichael 2(#- MordentiinOctoberorNovemberof1989(R.747).Accordingto )%/ Barnes,Mr.MordentiidentifiedhimselfbylettingBarnes know Z+&1 thathewasinthemob(R.747).Hetestifiedthathewentto  seeMr.Mordenti athiscarlotinSt.Petersburg(R.750).He D testifiedthathewenttherewithaJoelDardenandobserved (  DardenpurchaseagunfromMr.Mordenti(R.750).#XXX XEH#XEXXX l    ThisCourterredinconcludingthatthemobcommentwas  P harmlesserror.#XXXXEM# XEXXXThisCourtsfailureinthedirectappealto    knowwhoBarneswasandhowthetrialprosecutorindicatedthat (x  hismobcommentwasrelevanttotheStatespresentationofits   caseisaviolationofdueprocess.SeeParkerv.Dugger,498 P  U.S.308,321(1991)( thereisasenseinwhichthecourtdidnot 4 reviewParkerssentenceatall).#XXX XEM# XEXXXԀ#XXX XEO#XEXXXTherecordhaditbeenread x revealedthatMr.BarnesmetMr.Mordentiathiscardealership,  \ notinjail. #  1      ׀Further,therecordclearlycontainedthetrial  prosecutorsexplanationaftertheconvictionofthemannerin 4 whichsheusedthetestimonytoobtainaconviction.    #XXXXEP# XEXXXHavinggivenMr.Mordentiastatelawrighttoadirect \ appeal,theStateofFlorida#XXX XE4R# XEXXXwasobligatedtoaffordMr.Mordenti @  anappealthatcomportedwithdueprocessandprovidedMr. " Mordentiwithafairopportunitytovindicatehisconstitutional !h$ rights.Hewittv.Helms,459U.S.460(1983).AstheUnited "& StatesSupremeCourthasheld: Afirstappealasofright[]is @$( notadjudicatedinaccordwithdueprocessoflawifthe %$!* appellantdoesnothavetheeffectiveassistanceofanattorney. h'",   Evittsv.Lucey,469U.S.387,396(1985).#XXX XER#XEXXXTotheextentthat (L$. Mr.Mordentisappellatecounselfailedtoadequatelyadvisethis  Courtofthepertinentmattersnecessarytodemonstratethatthe D errorwasnotharmless,hisperformancewasdeficientandMr. ( Mordentiwasprejudiced.#XXXXEU# XEXXXԀ l    TheStatearguesthatMr.Mordentireceived spirited  P advocacyonthispointwhilequotingfromtheInitialBriefa    passagewheretheappellatecounselargued: (x  ` Clearly,theelectrifyinginformationfirstfromhis   exwifethatappellanthadthrowawaypiecesandthat   hewasdealingwithsomepeoplethatwereshadyand P  finally,fromBarnes,thathe[i.e.Mr.Mordenti]had j  introducedhimself(tosomeoneinprison,perhapswhen 4 hehimselfwasinprison?)Assomeoneinthemobis  notthekindoferrorthatwillnoteffectthejurys x deliberations. B ` :XHXResponseat7,quotingInitialBriefonDirectAppealat49. & Appellatecounselwasshockinglydeficientinwritingthis j paragraph.HeobviouslydidnotknowthatMr.Mordentididnot N meetMr.BarnesinjailandhadfailedtoreadBarnestestimony  thathealongwithJoelDardenwenttoseeMr.Mordenti athis &v carlotinSt.Petersburg(R.750),andobserved Darden  ! purchaseagunfromMr.Mordenti(R.750).Appellatecounsels N # failuretoreadtherecordseemsprettyinadequateperformance. !2%   Butinthisquotedparagraph,appellatecounselperhaps v#' unwittinglysuggeststhatBarnestestimonywascumulativeto  %Z )  theelectrifyinginformationthatwastestifiedtobyGail &!+ MordentiMilligan.Thishardlyconstitutesadvocacy.Appellate 2(#- counselfailedtopointouttothisCourtthattheprosecutor )%/ introducedthemobcommenttoprovidecorroborationforGails Z+&1 story.#XXX XEW#XEXXX Sothatwenttocorroborateortoshowthathehadthe  meanstocommitthiscrimeortohaveaccesstosomeoneelse.#XXXXE_# XEXXX D (R.1557).#XXX XEe`# XEXXXԀ (   Certainly,thesamedueprocessprincipleapplieswhenthe l  Statewithholdspertinentandexculpatoryinformationregarding  P thefactualcircumstancesunderlyingtheissuesraisedinthe    appeal.Asisnowknownfromtheevidentiaryhearing,Barnes (x  wenttofederalprisonbecauseoftheassistanceMr.Mordenti   providedtotheFBI.Ofcourse,theStatekeptthisfactnot P  justfromthejury,butalsofromthisCourt. 4 Ѐ#XXX XE`#XEXXX  TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasrecognizedthata x prosecutoris:  \ ` therepresentativenotofanordinarypartytoa  controversy,butofasovereigntywhoseobligationto j governimpartiallyisascompellingasitsobligation 4 togovernatall;andwhoseinterest,therefore,ina N criminalprosecutionisnotthatitshallwinacase,  butthatjusticeshallbedone.  ` cdBergerv.UnitedStates,295U.S.78,88(1935).Asaresult, &v theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasforbidden theprosecutionto  ! engageinadeliberatedeceptionofcourtandjury.Grayv. N # Netherland,518U.S.152,165(1996),quotingMooneyv.Holohan, !2% 294U.S.103,112(1935).#XXXXE`c# XEXXXThatprincipleappliesevenonappeal. v#'  Truthiscriticalintheoperationofourjudicialsystemandwe  %Z ) findsuchaffirmativemisrepresentationsbyanyattorney,but &!+ especiallyonewhorepresentstheStateofFlorida,tobe 2(#- disturbing.TheFloridaBarv.Feinberg,760So.2d933,939 )%/ (Fla.2000).#XXX XEg#XEXXXThisCourtsconsiderationofBarnestestimonywas Z+&1 hamperedbythefactthatthetrialprosecutorwithheldcritical  truths.Thistooconstitutedadueprocessviolationthat D deprivedMr.Mordentiofafullandfairdirectappeal. (   AstoMr.Mordentiscontentionthatplainorfundamental l  erroroccurredwhenthisCourtwasmisledastothenatureofthe  P immunityprovidedGailMordentiMilligan,theStateargues, that    misdescriptioncouldonlyredoundtothebenefitofPetitioner (x  sincethejurymightmistakenlybelievethewitnesshadbeen   givenagreaterbenefit(andhencehadgreatermotivationto P  embellish)thanwasactuallythecase.Responseat9.The 4 Stateslogicismoretwistedandcontortedthanapretzel. #  2      ׀A x witnesswhohaslessprotectionandisinfactsubjectto  \ prosecutionforcriminalactivityhasmoremotivationtocurry  favorwiththeStatethanawitnesswhohas totalimmunity. 4   TheStatespositionalsoignoresthisCourtsholdingthat  #XXXXEoi# XEXXX Truthiscriticalintheoperationofourjudicialsystemandwe \ findsuchaffirmativemisrepresentationsbyanyattorney,but @  especiallyonewhorepresentstheStateofFlorida,tobe " disturbing.TheFloridaBarv.Feinberg,760So.2d933,939 !h$ (Fla.2000).#XXX XEJo#XEXXXSurelytruthisnecessaryforacorrectresolution "& ofacapitaldirectappeal.Acapitaldirectappealconducted  @$( withouttruthbecauseofmisrepresentationsbytheStatesurely  violatesdueprocess. D @  & CLAIMII  ( ` `  FLORIDASCAPITALSENTENCINGPROCEDURE l  DEPRIVEDMR.MORDENTIOFHISSIXTHAMENDMENT 6  RIGHTSTONOTICEANDTOAJURYTRIALANDOF  P HISRIGHTTODUEPROCESS.     ` `   InitsResponseastoClaimII,theStateignoresmany ^   significantlegaldevelopmentsregardingthisclaim intheyear B  sincethehabeaspetitionwasfiled.#XXXXEp# XEXXXFollowingtheUnitedStates   SupremeCourtdecisioninRingv.Arizona,536U.S.584(2002), j  considerableconfusionoverthescopeofthatdecisionhas  developed.InRing,theSupremeCourtnotedthattheSixth B Amendmentjurytrialguaranteeappliedtofactualdeterminations & necessarytorenderacriminaldefendantdeatheligible. j Accordingly,theapplicationofthisprinciplerequireda N determinationofwhatconstitutedthefactualprerequisitesfor  deatheligibilityunderstatelaw.#XXX XEt#XEXXXTheSupremeCourtdecidedin &v Ringv.Arizonathatthepresenceofanaggravatingcircumstance  ! wasafactualissuethatconstitutedan elementunderArizona N # lawbecauseitspresencewasnecessarytorenderoneconvictedof !2% firstdegreemurdereligibleforadeathsentence.#XXXXEw# XEXXX v#' #XXX XE3y# XEXXX  Thevariouscourtsthathaveaddressedtheimplicationsof  %Z ) Ringonspecificcapitalsentencingschemeshavesplitonnot &!+ onlywhatconstitutesafactualdeterminationnecessaryfor 2(#- deatheligibility,butalsowheretolooktofindtheanswer. )%/ #XXX XEy# XEXXXRecently,#XXX XE"{# XEXXXtheNevadaSupremeCourtfoundthatitscapitalscheme Z+&1 violatedtheSixthAmendmentinthosecaseswhereitpermitteda  judgetoimposeadeathsentenceafterajurywasunableto D arriveatunanimousdecision.Johnsonv.State,59P.3d450,460 ( (Nev.2002).There,theNevadaSupremeCourtexplainedthat l  Nevadalaw requirestwodistinctfindingstorenderadefendant  P deatheligible.Theremustbeatleastoneaggravating    circumstanceandnomitigationsufficienttooutweighthe (x  aggravatingcircumstances.EmployingRing,theNevadaSupreme   Courtconcludedthatthesetwofindingswerefactualelements P  thatweresubjecttothejurytrialguarantee.Becausein 4 Johnson,thejuryhadbeenunabletoreturnaunanimousverdict, x theNevadaSupremeCourtconcludedthattheerrorwasnot  \ harmless,anditvacatedthedeathsentence. #  3      #XXX XEn{# XEXXXԀ    Similarly,theMissouriSupremeCourtinStatev.Whitfield, 4 107S.W.3d253(Mo.2003),concludedthatMissourisstatutory  schemerequiredthreefactualdeterminationstobemadebeforea \ deathsentencecouldbeimposed.First,afindingofatleast @  onestatutoryaggravatorwasrequired.Second,adetermination " thattheaggravatingfactorsweresufficienttojustifythe !h$ impositionofadeathsentencewasrequired.Third,afactual "& resolutionthatthemitigatingfactorsdidnotoutweighthe @$( aggravatingfactorswasrequired.#XXX XEe# XEXXXԀIfthesefactual  determinationscannotbemade,thedefendantisnoteligiblefor D adeathsentence.#XXX XE# XEXXXԀAccordingly,theMissouriSupremeCourtfound ( thateachofthesethreestepsrequiredafactualfindingthat l  wasprerequisitetodeatheligibility,andinturnconstituted  P elementsofcapitalmurder. #  4      #XXX XEX#XEXXX 0  #XXXXE#XEXXX  (#(# #XXXXEK# XEXXX  However,Mr.MordentirecognizesthatthisCourthasrefused (x  tolooktotheFloridastatutoryrequirements,focusinginstead   onthelanguageintheSupremeCourtsRingopinionthatthe P  presenceofanaggravatingcircumstancewasanelementunder 4 Arizonalaw.ThisCourtfirstaddressedRinginitsdecision x denyingahabeaspetition#XXX XE#XEXXXinBottosonv.Moore,833So.2d693  \ (Fla.2002),cert.denied537U.S.1070.Thesevenjusticesof  thisCourtwrotesevendifferentopinionsastotheeffectifany 4 ofRinginFlorida.Similarly,thisCourtdeniedahabeas  petitioninKingv.Moore,831So.2d143(Fla.2002),cert. \ denied.537U.S.1067.Sincethosedecisions,thisCourthas @  generallycitedBottosonand/orKingwhiledenyingRingclaims. " #XXXXE# XEXXXSinceitsdecisioninBottoson,thisCourthasconsistentlyruled !h$ thatthepresenceofoneaggravatingcircumstanceprecludesRing "& error.Duestv.State,855So.2d33,39Fla.2003)( Wehave @$( previouslyrejectedclaimsunderApprendiandRingincases %$!* involvingtheaggravatingfactorofapreviousconvictionofa  felonyinvolvingviolence.);Wrightv.State,2003Fla.LEXIS D 1144,*42,So.2d(Fla.July3,2003)( InBottosonand ( King,wediscussedtheapplicationofRingandApprendito l  Floridascapitalsentencingscheme,andrejectedthe  P constitutionalchallenge,aswedohere.);McCoyv.State,853    So.2d896(Fla.2003)(same). (x    However,Mr.MordentirespectfullysubmitsthatthisCourt   hasmisconstruedtheSupremeCourtsopinioninRingassimply P  establishingthatthepresenceofanaggravatingcircumstanceis 4 necessarytorenderadefendantdeatheligible.#XXX XEX#XEXXXԀAccordingtothe x decisionsfromthisCourt,ifanaggravatorexistsasamatterof  \ law,thenRingdoesnotapplytorequireajurydetermination  thattheaggravatorispresent.ThisCourtsanalysisisatodds 4 withtheconstructionofRingbytheNevadaSupremeCourtandthe  MissouriSupremeCourt,bothofwhichreadRingtomeanthata \ statesownstatutorylanguagecontrolsastowhatconstitutesan @  elementofcapitalfirstdegreemurder. #  5      ׀ "   InFlorida,921.141,Fla.Stat.,requiresboththejury !h$ andthetrialjudgetomakethreefactualdeterminationsbeforea "& deathsentencemaybeimposed.They(1)mustfindtheexistence @$( ofatleastoneaggravatingcircumstance,(2)mustfindthat %$!*  sufficientaggravatingcircumstancesexisttojustify h'", impositionofdeath,and(3)mustfindthat thereare  insufficientmitigatingcircumstancestooutweightheaggravating D circumstances.921.141(3),Fla.Stat.(emphasisadded).If ( thejudgedoesnotmakethesefindings, thecourtshallimpose l  sentenceoflifeimprisonmentinaccordancewith[]775.082.  P Id.(emphasisadded).#XXXXE#XEXXX    #XXXXE# XEXXX  Inconformitywiththestatutoryrequirements,Mr. (x  Mordentisjurywasinstructed:#XXX XEq#XEXXX   `  Itisnowyourdutyasjurorsto advise theCourt P  astowhatpunishmentshouldbeimposeduponthe j  defendant,MichaelMordenti,forhiscrimeoffirst 4 degreemurderofThelmaRoyston.   Asyouhavebeentold, thefinaldecisionasto B whatpunishmentshallbeimposed,istheresponsibility  \ oftheJudge. However,youradvisoryverdictasto & whatsentenceshouldbeimposedonthedefendant,  MichaelMordenti,isentitledbylawandwillbegiven j greatweightbythisCourtindeterminingwhatsentence 4 toimposeinthiscase.Itisonlyunderrare N circumstancesthatthisCourtcouldimposeasentence  otherthanthesentencethatyou,thejurors,  recommend. \  Itisyourdutytofollowthelawthatwillnowbe @  giventoyoubythisCourtandrendertothecourtan  ! advisorysentence baseduponyourdeterminationasto "  whethersufficientaggravatingcircumstancesexistto N # justifytheimpositionofthedeathpenalty ,and !h$  whethersufficientmitigatingcircumstancesexistto !2% outweighanyaggravatingcircumstancesfoundtoexist . "&    Youradvisorysentenceshouldbebasedupon @$( theevidencethatyouhaveheardwhiletryingtheguilt  %Z ) orinnocenceofthedefendantandtheevidencethathas %$!* beenpresentedtoyouintheseproceedings. &!+ @-D*** 2(#-    Ifyoufindtheaggravatingcircumstancesdo )%/ notjustifythedeathpenalty,youradvisorysentence *%0 shouldbooneoflifeimprisonment,withoutpossibility Z+&1 ofparolefortwentyfiveyears.Shouldyoufind $,t'2 sufficientaggravatingcircumstancesdoexist,itwill  thenbeyourdutytodeterminewhethermitigating z circumstancesexistthatoutweightheaggravating D circumstances. ^ ` \(R3.148992)(emphasisadded.).#XXXXE(#XEXXX  #XXXXE`# XEXXX  ThethreestepsinFloridasstatuteandthejury 6  instructions,likethestepsinMissouri,also requirefactual    findingsthatareprerequisitestothetrieroffacts ^   determinationthatadefendantisdeatheligible.Step1inthe B  Floridaprocedurerequiresdeterminingwhetheratleastone   aggravatingcircumstanceexists.Step2intheFloridaprocedure j  requiresdeterminingwhether sufficientaggravating  circumstancesexisttojustifyimpositionofdeath.Missouris B Step2isindistinguishable,requiringadeterminationofwhether & theevidenceofallaggravatingcircumstances warrantsimposing j thedeathsentence.Step3intheFloridaprocedurerequires N determiningwhether thereareinsufficientmitigating  circumstancestooutweightheaggravatingcircumstances. &v MissourisStep3,aswellasNevadasStep2,areidentical,  ! requiringadeterminationofwhethermitigatingcircumstances N # outweighaggravatingcircumstances. !2%   InFlorida,asinMissouriandtheotherstatesdiscussedin v#' Whitfield,thesentencerdoesnotconsidertheultimatequestion  %Z ) ofwhetherornottoimposedeathuntiltheeligibilitystepsare &!+ completed.Afterthefirstthreesteps,theFloridastatute 2(#- directsthejurytodetermine, [b]asedontheseconsiderations, )%/ whetherthedefendantshouldbesentencedtolifeimprisonmentor Z+&1 death.Section921.141(2)(c),Fla.Stat.Thestructureofthe  statuteclearlyestablishesthatthestepswhichoccurbefore D thisdeterminationarenecessarytomakethedefendanteligible ( forthisultimatedetermination,thatis,torenderthedefendant#XXX XE#XEXXX l  deatheligible.  P   TheinstructionsgiventoMr.Mordentisjurytrackedthe    stepscontainedinthestatute.Thejurywasrequiredtofind (x   sufficientaggravatingcircumstancesexisttojustifythe   impositionofthedeathpenalty#XXXXEl#XEXXX.Thejurywasthentold,ifso, P  togotothenextstepanddetermine whethersufficient 4 mitigatingcircumstancesexisttooutweighanyaggravating x circumstancesfoundtoexist.Onlyafterdeterminingthatthe  \ mitigatingcircumstancesdidnotoutweightheaggravating  circumstanceswasthejurytoldtoconsiderwhethertorecommend 4 asentenceofdeath.  #XXXXE # XEXXX  InRing,theSupremeCourtheld#XXX XEG#XEXXXthattheSixthAmendmentto \ theUnitedStatesConstitutionrequiresthatwhenaggravating @  factorsarestatutorilynecessaryforimpositionofthedeath " penalty,theymustbefoundbeyondareasonabledoubtbyajury: !h$ ` [W]eoverruleWalton[v.Arizona,497U.S.639(1990),] "& totheextentthatitallowsasentencingjudge, v#' sittingwithoutajury,tofindanaggravating @$( circumstancenecessaryforimpositionofthedeath  %Z ) penalty....BecauseArizonasenumerated %$!* aggravatingfactorsoperateasthefunctional &!+ equivalentofanelementofagreateroffense,... h'", theSixthAmendmentrequiresthattheybefoundbya 2(#- jury. (L$. ` Ring,536U.S.at609(citationsomitted).Thiswasin *%0 conformitywithitsearlierrulinginApprendiv.NewJersey, $,t'2 wheretheSupremeCourtheld, IfaStatemakesanincreaseina  defendantsauthorizedpunishmentcontingentonthefindingofa D fact,thatfactnomatterhowtheStatelabelsitmustbefound ( byajurybeyondareasonabledoubt.530U.S.at48283.Ring l  appliedApprenditothecategoryofcapitalmurdercasesand  P concludedanyfactrenderingapersoneligibleforadeath    sentenceisanelementoftheoffense.536U.S.at604,quoting (x  Apprendi,530U.S.at494( Ineffect,therequiredfinding[of   anaggravatingcircumstance]expose[d][Ring]toagreater P  punishmentthanthatauthorizedbythejurysguiltyverdict).#XXXXE# XEXXXԀ 4 TheSupremeCourthasevenmorerecentlyelaborateduponthe x meaningofRing.InSattazahnv.Pennsylvania,123S.Ct.732,  \ 739(2003),theSupremeCourtexplained:  ` sPutsimply,iftheexistenceofanyfact(otherthana 4 priorconviction)increasesthemaximumpunishmentthat N maybeimposedonadefendant,thatfact!nomatterhow  theStatelabelsit!constitutesanelement,andmust  befoundbyajurybeyondareasonabledoubt. \ ` #XXX XEܷ#XEXXX  Thequestion#XXXXE˺#XEXXXwhichRingv.Arizonadecidedwaswhatfacts @  constitute elementsincapitalsentencingproceedings.The " bulkoftheRingopinionaddresseshowtodeterminewhethera !h$ factisan elementofacrime.SeeRing,122S.Ct.at2437 "& 43.ThequestioninRingwasnotwhethertheSixthAmendment @$( requiresajurytodecideelements.Thathasbeenagivensince %$!* theBillofRightswasadopted.Thequestionwaswhatfactsare h'", elements.JusticeThomasexplainedthisinhisconcurring (L$. opinioninApprendiv.NewJersey: *%0   $,t'2  ` Thiscaseturnsontheseeminglysimplequestion  ofwhatconstitutesa crime.UndertheFederal z Constitution, theaccusedhastheright(1) tobe D informedofthenatureandcauseoftheaccusation ^ (thatis,thebasisonwhichheisaccusedofacrime), ( (2)tobe heldtoanswerforacapital,orotherwise  infamouscrimeonlyonanindictmentorpresentmentof l  agrandjury,and(3)tobetriedby animpartialjury 6  oftheStateanddistrictwhereinthecrimeshallhave  P beencommitted.Amdts.5and6.SeealsoArt.III,    [Sec.]2,cl.3( TheTrialofallCrimes...shall    bebyJury).WiththeexceptionoftheGrandJury ^   Clause,seeHurtadov.California,110U.S.516,538. (x  ..(1884),theCourthasheldthattheseprotections B  applyinstateprosecutions.Herringv.NewYork,422   U.S.853,857,andn.7...(1975).Further,the   Courthasheldthatdueprocessrequiresthatthejury P  findbeyondareasonabledoubteveryfactnecessaryto j  constitutethecrime.InreWinship,397U.S.358,364 4 ...(1970).   ` Alloftheseconstitutionalprotectionsturnon B determiningwhichfactsconstitutethe crimethat  \ is,whichfactsarethe elementsor ingredientsof & acrime.Inorderforanaccusationofacrime  (whetherbyindictmentorsomeotherform)tobeproper j underthecommonlaw,andthusproperunderthe 4 codificationofthecommonlawrightsintheFifthand N SixthAmendments,itmustallegeallelementsofthat  crime;likewise,inorderforajurytrialofacrime  tobeproper,allelementsofthecrimemustbeproved \ tothejury(and,underWinship,provedbeyonda &v reasonabledoubt). @  tApprendi,120S.Ct.at236768(Thomas,J.,concurring) N # (emphasisadded).JusticeThomasexplainedthatcourtshave !2%  longhadtoconsiderwhichfactsareelements,butthatonce v#' thatquestionisanswered, itisthenasimplemattertoapply  %Z ) thatanswertowhateverconstitutionalrightmaybeatissueina &!+ casehere,Winshipandtherighttotrialbyjury.Id.at 2(#- 2368.#XXXXE9#XEXXX )%/   Z+&1   JustasJusticeThomasexplainedinApprendi,therewasno  questioninRingthatthejurytrialrightappliestoelements. D ThedisputeinRinginvolvedwhatwasanelement.Thus,the ( questioninRingisakintoastatutoryconstructionissue,and l   retroactivityisnotatissue.Fiorev.White,531U.S.225,  P 226(2001);Bunkleyv.Florida,123S.Ct.2020,2023(2003).    Thatis,theSixthAmendmentrighttohaveajurydecideelements (x  isabedrock,indisputableright.     UnderaproperreadingofRing,theFloridastatutory P  provisionsasreflectedintheinstructionsgiventoMr. 4 Mordentisjurymakesthestepsrequiredbeforethejuryisfree x toconsiderwhichsentencetoimposeelementsofcapitalfirst  \ degreemurder.    TheStatealsoarguesthatRingisnotretroactive. 4 However,itcitesnotasinglecasefromthisCourtfindingRing  notretroactive.Instead,theStatereliesuponfederal \ decisionsconcerningwhethertheprovisionsofTeaguev.Lane, @  489U.S.288(1989),whichgovernsfederalhabeascorpus " proceedings,permitconsiderationofRingasauthorityincases !h$ thatwerefinalatthetimeRingissued.Initsargument,the "& Stateneglectedtomentionauthoritycontrarytoitsposition. @$( #XXXXE8# XEXXXInSummerlinv.Stewart,#XXX XE~#XEXXX2003U.S.App.LEXIS18111(9thCir. %$!* September2,2003)(inbanc),theinbancNinthCircuitconcluded h'", thatRingannouncedsubstantivecriminallawwhichbydefinition (L$. appliedretroactively.Further,theinbancNinthCircuit *%0 concludedthatRingerrorwasstructuralerrornotsubjectto $,t'2 harmlesserroranalysis.#XXXXE#XEXXX    Mr.MordentiacknowledgesthatSummerlinwasinconflict D withdecisionsfromothercircuitcourtsofappeal.Infact,the ( UnitedStatesSupremeCourthasgrantedcertiorarireviewin l  Summerlininordertoresolvethesplitamongthecircuits.  P Schrirov.Summerlin,#XXXXE#XEXXX2003U.S.LEXIS8574(Dec.1,2003).      UnderthelawignoredbytheStateinitsResponse,Mr. (x  MordentiwasdeprivedofhisSixthAmendmentrighttohavethe   juryunanimouslydeterminewhetherthestatutoryrequirementsfor P  deatheligibilityweremet.Habeasreliefiswarranted. 4 #XXXXE#XEXXX@& CLAIM III  x ` `  MR.MORDENTIWASDENIEDHISRIGHTSUNDERTHE  \ FOURTH,FIFTH,SIXTH,EIGHTH,ANDFOURTEENTH & AMENDMENTSTOTHEUNITEDSTATESCONSTITUTION,  ANDTHECORRESPONDINGPROVISIONSOFTHE j FLORIDACONSTITUTION,WHENTHEPROSECUTOR 4 IMPERMISSIBLYSUGGESTEDTOTHEJURYTHELAW N REQUIREDTHATITRECOMMENDASENTENCEOF  DEATH.APPELLATECOUNSELWASINEFFECTIVEFOR  FAILINGTORAISETHISISSUEONDIRECTAPPEAL. \ ` `    #XXXXEh#XEXXXTheStateinitsResponserefusestoaddresstheegregious @  commentsmadebythetrialprosecutorinhisclosingduringthe " penaltyphase.#XXXXE#XEXXXHearguedtothejury: !h$ 8  Nothingthatthedefensecansay,nothingthatthe "& defensecandocanmitigatethismurder.Anykilling v#' ofahumanbeingisatrocious.Anykillingofahuman @$( beingisaggravating.Nothingmitigatesthekillingof  %Z ) ahumanbeing,butabsolutelynothingatallmitigates %$!* this.Nothing.Nothingmitigatesthis.&!+   (R.14681469). 2(#-   Anyanalysisofthisargumentdemonstratesthatthe )%/ prosecutorfirstarguedthattheEighthAmendmentrequirement Z+&1 thatacapitaldefendantwasentitledtopresentmitigating  evidencedidnotapplyhere.Theprosecutorisarguingforan D automaticdeathsentencewhichhasbeenrepeatedlyfoundto ( violatetheEighthAmendment.Sumnerv.Shuman,483U.S.66 l  (1987)( theEighthAmendmentandFourteenthAmendmentsrequire  P thatthesentencingauthoritybepermittedtoconsiderany    relevantmitigatingcircumstancebeforeimposingadeath (x  sentence).     Second,theprosecutorsaid, [a]nykillingofahumanbeing P  isatrocious.Thatismostassuredlynotthelaw.Godfreyv. 4 Georgia,446U.S.420(1980)#XXXXE#XEXXX;Maynardv.Cartwright,486U.S.356 x (1988);Espinosav.Florida,505U.S.1079(1992).Infact,such  \ anargumentundeniablyiscontrarytoEighthAmendment  jurisprudence.Itisanargumentthatanymurderqualifiesas 4  heinous,atrociousorcruel.#XXXXE#XEXXXԀSuchanargumentdeprivesthe  aggravatingcircumstanceofitsnarrowingfunction.Smalleyv. \ State,546So.2d720(Fla.1989). @    Third,theprosecutorargued, [a]nykillingofahuman " beingisaggravating#XXXXE#XEXXX.Withthis,theprosecutorwasarguing !h$ againsttheapplicationofthecorevalueoftheEighthAmendment "& recognizedinFurmanv.Georgia,408U.S.238(1972). @$(   Fourth,theprosecutorargued, [n]othingmitigatesthe %$!* killingofahumanbeing.Here,theprosecutorarguedagainst h'", theapplicationofthecorevalueoftheEighthAmendment (L$. recognizedinLockettv.Ohio,438U.S.586(1978). *%0   InitsResponse,theStateasserts, [t]heprosecutors $,t'2 commentsdidnotconstitutefundamentalerrorandwere  appropriateadvocacyasjusticeunderthefactsofthiscase. D Inmakingthisargument,theStateignorestheprosecutors ( actualargumentwhichurgedthejurynottoperformanarrowing l  functiononthebasisofthefactsofthiscase,andnotto  P considerthemitigatingevidencenecessarytoconductan    individualizedsentencing.Theprosecutorsargumentmost (x  assuredlywasnotproperadvocacy.     TheremarkswereofthetypethatthisCourthasfound"so P  egregious,inflammatory,andunfairlyprejudicialthatamistrial 4 wastheonlyproperremedy."  Garronv.State,528So.2d353, x 358(Fla.1988).Thecircumstancesareparalleltothesituation  \ attheguiltphasein  Nowitzkev.State,572So.2d1346(Fla.  1990),wherethisCourtorderedanewtrial,commenting: 4 8   ` Wealsoarepersuadedthat[theDefendant]was  deniedafairtrialbytheprosecutorialmisconduct  thatpermeatedthiscase....Whileisolated \ incidentsofoverreachingmayormaynotwarranta &v mistrial,inthiscasethecumulativeeffectofone @  improprietyafteranotherwassooverwhelmingasto  ! deprive[theDefendant]ofafairtrial."   Nowitzke,572So.2dat1350. !h$   TotheextentthattheStatearguesthatthisclaimwas "& raisedanddecidedondirectappeal,theStateignoresthefact @$( thatthisCourtwasdeniedadequateappellateadvocacy.#XXXXE# XEXXXThelack %$!* ofappellateadvocacyonMr.Mordentisbehalfisidenticalto h'", thelackofadvocacypresentinothercasesinwhichthisCourt (L$. hasgrantedhabeascorpusrelief. $ Wilsonv.Wainwright,474 *%0 So.2d1162(Fla.1985).Advocacyincludesnotjustlistingof $,t'2 issues,butargumentastohowtheerrorviolatedthedefendants  rightsandwhyareversalisrequired.Yet,counselfailedto D adequatelyarguetheclaim. ( #XXX XE#XEXXX  Amplecaselawwasavailable.Argumentssuchasthose l  presentedherehavebeenlongcondemnedas_violative_Ԁofdue  P processandtheEighthAmendment.See  Drakev.Kemp,762F.2d    1449,145861(11thCir.1985)(inbanc).Suchargumentsrendera (x  sentenceofdeathfundamentallyunreliableandunfair.Drake,   762F.2dat1460.( [_T]he_Ԁremarksprejudiceexceededevenits P  factuallymisleadingandlegallyincorrectcharacter);  _Potts_Ԁv. 4 _Zant_,734F.2d526,536(11thCir.1984)(becauseofimproper x prosecutorialargument,thejurymayhave failedtogiveits  \ decisiontheindependentandunprejudicedconsiderationthelaw  requires). 4   Habeasreliefiswarranted.  #XXXXEP#XEXXX@% CONCLUSION  \   Forallofthereasonsdiscussedhereinandinhispetition, @  Mr.MordentirespectfullyurgestheCourttogranthabeascorpus " relief. !h$  %$!*   @ CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE     IHEREBYCERTIFYthatatruecopyoftheforegoingReplyto D ResponsetoPetitionforWritofHabeasCorpushasbeenfurnished ( byUnitedStatesMail,firstclasspostageprepaid,toRobert l  Landry,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,DepartmentofLegalAffairs,  P ConcourseCenter#4,3507FrontageRoad,Suite200,Tampa,FL    33607onJanuary14,2004. (x     `     h   ?}' hdE h?   n P    `     h   #XXXXE#XEXXXMARTINJ.MCCLAIN n     `     h   AppointedRegistry 8     `     h   FloridaBarNo.0754773 R    `     h   141N.E.30thStreet     `     h   WiltonManors,FL33334     `     h   (305)9848344 `    `     h   COUNSELFORPETITIONER  D #XXXXE#XEXXX#XXXXE#XEXXX#XXXXE# XEXXXԀ#XXX XE3#XEXXX0  #XXXXEv#XEXXXԀ#XXXXE#XEXXXR(#(# #XXXXE#XEXXX#XXXXEi#XEXXX#XXXXE#XEXXX#XXXXE#XEXXX D   @ CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCE     Iherebycertifythattheforegoingpetitionhasbeen D reproducedina12pointCouriertype,afontwhichisnot ( proportionatelyspaced. l     `     h By:__________________________       `     h MARTINJ.MCCLAIN ^      `     h CounselforPetitioner (x  #XXXXE3#