WPCy< qy@}hvR`'o&;0uf7vySe_=ԕޡ_q}! O~(Mp&O<2Ԩ+WFW3_ԫow%B_rG54_ |ayi:\hdp/xOj(Ұ<8ٽցX ؀[waXƈ w!I ݥp' Ra(I=7EjLo1u MkAf!{| /b,uԍ^}<*:;)o#HgEʔqzI'HV5Ub-Lt.އ/h6DhMb+u=f&F|N?Ժ$U(䤅L0 u=9 b fťJI<_<|ˮ,>>IIMvqxHv Rh R}#U8N % 0: UC8- ^ e wq 4u   m  f 1.U.F 1 0~ 0DU:Df~~~UFN**U.,,Zf 0Dff<t"f,% 1%& 1(' 1u']$(UF))P. 0c//"30 0wU0"000 10007u1u1u1d33"7777"27"T7T7T7"v7E7 7277777777777 B777777777777777777777777777777777777777q<Xerox DocuPrint P8 0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,<4 9Z+ Courier New :/ ]/*-10B3|x U  ($USUS.,    1    _X|0XXXDuringthepastthreeyears,ithasbeenestablishedthat  innocentmenhavebeenresidentsofFloridasdeathrow. \\R3'Letter\(EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular(UhCEKQW]cioAutoList31.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0  <  9`("Courier 10cpi \\R3'Letter\<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular<6X9`(Courier  ($USUS.,    2    _X|0XXXEventhoughtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinitsopinion  didnotsuggestthatRinghadanyimplicationsforthecapital  sentencingschemesinNevadaorMissouriorinjurysentencing \ stateslikeOhio,thecourtsinthosestatestookthelogicof 2 thedecisioninRing,analyzedtheirstatelaw,andreachedthe X conclusionthatundertheprinciplesenunciatedinRingthat . SixthAmendmenterrorwaspresentinindividualcases. \\R3'Letter\6K 24Heading 1          ($USUS.,    3    _X|0XXXTheseopinionsshowdisparityinapplicationofharmless  erroranalysistotheSixthAmendmentviolationdefinedbyRing.  Seealso_Esparza_Ԁv.Mitchell,310F.3dat421. \\R3'Letter\ \\R3'Letter\  ($USUS.,    5    _X|0XXXAsimilardecisionwasreachedinPeoplev.Swift,781  N.E.2d292(Ill.2002)(noncapitalapplicationofRingina  murdercase).TheretheIllinoisSupremeCourtstated, the \ sentencingrangeforfirstdegreemurderinIllinoisis20to 2 60yearsimprisonment.Thisistheonlyrangeofsentence X permissiblebasedonanordinaryjuryverdictofguilt.781 . N.E.2dat300.Accordingly,asentenceabovethatrangeimposed   afterajudgefoundoneaggravatingfactorwasoverturned.  ($USUS.,    6    _X|0XXXInWrinklesv.State,776N.E.2d905(Ind.2002),the  IndianaSupremeCourtfounditunnecessarytoconsiderthe  implicationsofRinginasuccessorpostconvictionmotion \ becausethedefendanthadbeenconvictedofthreemurdersthereby 2 renderingthedefendantdeatheligible.  ($USUS.,    7    _X|0XXXTheobviousandimportantdistinctionsfromFlorida  include:1)theunanimityrequirementonwhichthejuryis  instructed,2)thechargingrequirement,and3)theprovision \ underIndianalawspecificallyrequiringthejurytodetermine 2 whetheroneormoreaggravatingcircumstancesarepresent. X   TheIndianalegislaturespecificallydefinedtheeligibility . issuesolelyuponthepresenceofoneaggravatingcircumstance.   TheFloridalegislaturehasdefinedtheissuedifferently,and   hasnotsoughttomodifythestatuteinthewakeofRing.The `  _sentencer_Ԁistodeterminewhether  sufficient aggravating 6   circumstancesexisttowarranttheimpositionofadeath  j  sentence,andifso,whether#XXXX|0e#X|0XXX thereareinsufficientmitigating  @  circumstancestooutweightheaggravatingcircumstances.#XXXX|0w#ԀX|0XXXFla.   Stat.921.141(3)(emphasisadded).#XXXX|01#  ($USUS.,    8    _X|0XXXHowever,theIndianalegislaturehadamendedthestatute  aftertheRingdecisiontorequirethatthejurymakeaspecial  findingthatithadunanimouslyfoundoneormoreofthecharged \ aggravatingcircumstancesbeyondareasonabledoubt.Boththe 2 IndianaSupremeCourtandtheIndianalegislatureimplicitly X recognizedthat_Hildwin_Ԁv.Floridadidnotsurvivethereasoning . ofRing. \\R3'Letter\(uhCEKQW]cioAutoList51.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.  ($USUS.,    4    _X|0XXXUndersignedcounselhasnotbeenabletofindanycases  fromtheMontanaSupremeCourtaddressingRing. 5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) S ($USUS.,    10    _X|0XXXThefirstdefinitionunderthestatuteisintentional  murder.Thesecondthroughtheseventhdefinitionsarepremised  \ uponalternativeaggravatingcircumstances.<Q 9Z+.Courier New Regular  ($USUS.,    11    _X|0XXXRecently,Justice_Pariente_ԀcitedBricefortheproposition  thatthe determinationthataggravatorsoutweighthemitigators  isnotafactualfindingthatmustbemadebyjuryunderRing. \ _Duest_Ԁv.State,_FSC_ԀCaseNo.SC002366,slipat34(Fla.June26, 2 2003).Unfortunately,thisoverlooksthefactthattheDelaware X legislationspecificallydefinedtheissuedifferentlythanthe . Floridalegislaturehasdefinedit(underDelawarelaw,theguilt   phaseverdictincludesaggravatingcircumstancesfromthepenalty   phase).ThereallessonofBriceisthattheproperRing `  analysismustfocusontheFloridastatutewhichsetsforththree 6   factualfindingsthatmustbemadebeforethedefendantisdeath  \  eligible. F ($USUS.,    13    _X|0XXXSignificantly,asecondstepismissinginthecapital  schemesinIndiana,AlabamaandDelawareasconstruedbythe  statesupremecourtsinthosestates.(;3$2#  0  .3  0       (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#     (ehCEKQW]cioAutoList41.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. - ($USUS.,    9    _X|0XXXThisisdecidedlydifferentthanFloridalawwhichrequires  1)thepresenceofanaggravatingcircumstance;2)the  determinationthatsufficientaggravatingcircumstancesare \ presenttojustifyadeathsentence;and3)theaggravating 2 circumstancesarenotoutweighedbythemitigatingcircumstances. X 921.141,Fla.Stat. Z ($USUS.,    12    _X|0XXXThestepsaredefinedandnumberedsomewhatdifferently  thantheyareinFloridasstatute.ButtheNevadastatuteis  muchclosertotheFloridastatutethaneithertheAlabamaor \ Delawarestatutes.AccordingtotheNevadaSupremeCourt,the 2 legislativedefinitionofcapitalmurderdeterminedwhat facts X weresubjecttotherighttotrialbyjury.Certainly,theright . ofconfrontationwouldapplytoproceedingsatwhichtheState   washeldtoprovetheseelementsatajurytrialbecauseboth   rightsarisefromthesamesource,theSixthAmendment.                    ,i) d Fla.R.App.Procuriamaffirmanceconcur[ringRuckerf]urther ExhGallegoStrickler S.Ctlaundromat Finap]rettyVolusiaDuggerEvittsLucey ha[db]ecauseKoganIBMR t]he postconvictionnondisclosureLightbourneEhrhardtOvertonShevin VLRCButterworth CrimArbelaezunderstaffingunderfundingMelendezSteinhorstw]henreviewablestandardlessFurmanMeinhard DPRASouterSpazianoHerreraMCCLAINTompkinsSeabreezeBurnsedAnsteadLestz CCRStinnettSwafford CCRC !USUS.,  _ X|0XXX 8.|0.XXdd8  #   ( 3*5*@*E*D*H*@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFFLORIDA    CASENOS.SC012523&SC021788    #XXXX|0@#X|0XXXMICHAELRIVERA#XXXX|01#X|0XXX, N    ` Appellant,  f vs.  . STATEOFFLORIDA,       ` Appellee.  n  ________________________/ R  #XXXX|0#X|0XXX #XXXX|0#X|0XXXMICHAELRIVERA#XXXX|0#X|0XXX,  \     ` Petitioner, $ vs.  JAMESV.CROSBY, d    ` Respondent.  ,| ________________________/ ` LXX|0LL      X|0XL& a f  f%  Ԍ̌  X|0XXX|0X|0XXX|0X|0XXX|0X|0XXX|0X|0XXX|0X|0XXX|0X|0XXX|0X|0XXX|0  LXX|0LLLLLLLLLLLLLL      #LL#X|0XL  MOTIONFORREHEARING 2   Ԍ  Ќ  X|0XXX|0X|0XXX|0X|0XXX|0X|0XXX|0X|0XXX|0X|0XXX|0X|0XXX|0X|0XXX|0  'a#XXXX|0O#X|0XXX  COMESNOW,Appellant/PetitionerMICHAELRIVERA,byand ] throughhisundersignedcounsel,pursuanttoFloridaRuleof  Y AppellateProcedure9.370,andmovesthisCourttogrant   rehearingintheabovestyledcause.Throughcounsel,Mr.Rivera a"! statesthefollowinggroundsinsupportofhisrequest:#XXXX|0 ##XX #XX  $]#   X|0XXX1. ` OnSeptember11,2003,thisCourtissuedanopinion % !% denyingMr.Riverasappealandhishabeaspetitionintheabove e'"' entitledmatters.Thismotionforrehearingistimelyfiled. )a$) Fla.R.App.Pro.9.330(a).#XXXX|0C ##XX #XX * &+ X|0XXX  2. ` IndenyingMr.Riverasappeal,thisCourtaffirmedthe i,'-    TRX3'LetterX3' Letter3'Letter8.|0.XXdd3'LetterT    circuitcourtsdenialofMr.Riverasclaimthathereceived  ineffectiveassistanceofcounselduringthepenaltyphase \ portionofhistrial.#XXXX|0#X|0XXX#LXX|0#X|0XLԀ#XXXX|0##XX/#XXX|0XXXThisCourtsassessmentoftrialcounsels X effectivenessundertheSixthAmendmentmustbegovernedby   _Strickland_Ԁv.Washington,466U.S.668(1984),andbytheSupreme `  CourtssubsequentexplicationsinWigginsv.Smith,123S.Ct.  \  2527(2003),andWilliamsv.Taylor,529U.S.362(2000).   However,thisCourtmadenoreferencetotherecent d  pronouncementsfromtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtineither `  WigginsandWilliamswhereinthe_Strickland_standardswere   illuminated.#XXXX|0##XX#LX|0XLԀ#XXXX|0##XX.#XXX|0XXXBecausethisCourtreliedoncasesthatarewholly h inconsistentwith!ifnotoverruledby!SupremeCourtlaw, d rehearingisnecessarytoresolvethisimportantissue.󀀀#XXXX|0##XX#XXX|0XXX    3. ` #XXXX|0##XX#LX|0XLThisCourtinaddressingtheineffectiveassistanceof l counselclaimbrieflyaddressedtheperformanceprongofthe h _Strickland_standard.Inits HistoryofDrugUsesectionofits  opinion,thisCourtsaid, thetrialcourtpointedoutinits p  orderthatatthepenaltyphase,defensecounselpresenteda !l" plethoraofmitigatingevidencesimilartothatpresentedat "$ thepostconvictionhearing.SlipOp.at10.UnderWiggins, t$& thatisnotthetestfordeterminingwhethercounsels  &p!( performancewasdeficient.#XXXX|0##XX#XXX|0XXXWigginsprovidesdifferent '#* instructiononhowareviewingcourtistoanalyzeatrial x)$, attorneysputative knowledgeofavailablemitigationand $+t&. strategicdecisionsflowingtherefrom.#XXXX|02##XX#XXX|0XXXԀThisanalysisrequiresa  closeexaminationoftherecord,particularlywheretrialcounsel \ lists sourcesofinformationfromwhichheallegedlyobtained X  knowledgeofmitigation;indeed,inWiggins,muchofthe   Courtsopinionisdevotedtosuchanexamination.SeeWiggins, `  123S.Ct.at2539et.seq.#XXXX|0#X|0XXX#LXX|0#X|0XLԀAny decisionbycounselnotto  h  presentevidenceaboutwhichhewasunreasonablyunawarecannot   survivescrutiny.Wiggins;Williams.Presentingsomemitigation |  orevenalotofmitigationdoesnotautomaticallyrendercounsel (x  constitutionallyeffectiveifheunreasonablyfailedto $ investigateandpresentedadditionalmitigationandthereisa  reasonableprobabilitythattheadditionalmitigationwouldhave ,| tippedthescalesinfavorofalifesentence. (   4. ` ThisCourtstatedinitsopinion, [_w]e_Ԁconcludethat  therecordsupportsthetrialcourtfindingsthatwhileperhaps 0 notpresentedinthesamedetail,defensecounseldidpresent , substantialevidenceofmitigationattheoriginalpenaltyphase.   #XXXX|0##XX #XXX|0XXXWigginshasthoroughlyrejectedthisCourtsreasoningin 4!" concludingthatMr.Riverahadnotdemonstrateddeficient "0$ performance.Mitigationmustbeinvestigatedbeforeanattorney $& turnstosomeotherlineofdefense.Anditmustbeinvestigated D&!( well.Wiggins,122S.Ct.at253637.UsingtheABAGuidelines '@#* fortheAppointmentandPerformanceofCounselinDeathPenalty, )$, theCourtinWigginsheldthatcounselsminimalinvestigation H+&.  TRX3'LetterX3'Letter3'Letter8.|0.XXdd3'Letter8.|0.XXddT   intothedefendantsbackground(onlyreviewingthedefendants  PSIreportandaDSSfile),andabandonmentofthatinvestigation \ inordertofocusonlingeringdoubt,fellshortofreasonable X professionalstandards:   ` Counselsconduct...fellshortofthestandardsfor `  capitaldefenseworkarticulatedbytheAmericanBar 6   Association...standardstowhichwehavelongreferred  \  asguidestodeterminingwhatisreasonable.TheABA  2  Guidelinesprovidethatinvestigationsintomitigating   evidence shouldcompriseeffortstodiscoverall   reasonablyavailablemitigatingevidenceandevidence d  torebutanyaggravatingevidencethatmaybe :  introducedbytheprosecutor.Id.(quotingABA `  GuidelinesfortheAppointmentandPerformanceof 6 CounselinDeathPenalty11.4.1(C),p.93(1989)).   ` ))Id.at2537.Itisnotreasonableforcounseltofindsome h mitigationandstopwhentheinvestigationisincomplete.  p   5. ` ThisCourtalsostated, counselsreasonablemental  healthinvestigationandpresentationofevidenceisnotrendered x incompetent merelybecausethedefendanthasnowsecuredthe $t testimonyofamoreafavorablementalhealthexpert.SlipOp.   at12,quoting_Asay_Ԁv.State,769So.2d974,986(Fla.2000). |  However,truethatstatementmaybe,thisCourtisimproperly (!x" invertingittoassertthatthemerepresentationofsubstantial "$$ mitigation_innoculates_Ԁtrialcounselfromafindingofhaving $& rendereddeficientperformancenomatterhowinadequatehis ,&|!( investigation.ThisCourtsanalysisofthedeficient '(#* performanceprongdoesnotcomportwiththeclearstandards )$, containedinWiggins.Thereasonablenessofcounselsconductat 0+&. thepenaltyphaseofacapitalcaseisdeterminedbytheconduct  anditscontext,notsimplythefactthatmitigationwasorwas \ notpresented.#XXXX|0$##XXq$#XXX|0XXXAswasmadeclearinWiggins,anineffectiveness X claimisaddressedbyexaminingwhatthelawyerinquestion   actuallyknewandactuallydidtoinvestigatepotential `  mitigation,andthencomparingthoseactionstoprevailing  \  professionalnorms.#XXXX|0Q3##XX23#ԀLX|0XL     6. ` ThisCourtsconclusionthatMr.Riverasprotestations ,  ofinnocence contradictsexpertopinionsfindingamitigating   circumstance(thatthecrimewascommitted undertheinfluence 4 ofdrugsatthetime)offendsdueprocess.First,mitigating 0 circumstancescanbeestablishedbycircumstantialevidence,just  astheStatecanestablishaggravatingcircumstancesthrough 8 circumstantialevidence.Toholdotherwisewouldviolatedue 4 processbyholdingthedefensetohigherstandardsthanthe  State.Second,theideathatmitigationisestablishedanda < deathsentenceavoidedonlythroughtheacknowledgmentofguilt 8  smacksofthelongagoSalemwitchtrialsandviolates !" fundamentalfairness.  #  1      ׀Third,thisCourtsopinionpermitsthe @#$ Statetorelyuponprotestationsofinnocencetoundercutaplea $< & forlifesentence,whiledenyingthedefensefromusingresidual &!( doubttoundercuttheStatespleaforadeathsentence.#XXXX|05#X|0XXX#LXX|0 5#|0XLSuchan D(#* _unlevel_Ԁplayingfieldoffendstheconstitutionalguaranteetodue  process._Dillbeck_Ԁv.State,643So.2d1027,1030(Fla.1994)( No \ trulyobjectivetribunalcancompelonesideinalegalboutto X abidebytheMarquisof_Queensbury_srules,whiletheother   fights_ungloved_.).#LX|0:#X|0XL#XXXX|0:#X|0XXXԀ#XXXX|0=#X|0XXX#LXX|0F=#X|0XL `    7. ` #XXXX|0=##XX>#LX|0XLAstotheprejudiceprong,thisCourtsanalysisdid  \  notcomportwiththeUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsrecent   pronouncements.#LXX|0>#X|0XL#XXXX|0>#X|0XXXԀFirst,todetermineprejudicefromthe d  unreasonablefailuretoinvestigateandpresentmitigating l  evidence, we_reweigh_Ԁtheevidenceinaggravationagainstthe  totalityofavailablemitigatingevidence.Wigginsv.Smith, t 123S.Ct2357,2542(2003)(emphasisadded);seealsoWilliams, ,| supra,120S.Ctat1495(courtisrequiredtoconductan 4  assessmentofthetotalityoftheomittedevidenceandthento   evaluatethetotalityoftheavailablemitigationevidence!both H thatadducedattrial,andtheevidenceadducedinthehabeas P proceeding)((emphasisadded).If theavailablemitigating   evidence,takenasawhole,mightwellhaveinfluencedthe d!" jurysappraisalof[thedefendants]moralculpability, #`$ Wiggins,123S.Ct.at2544(quotingWilliams,102S.Ct.at1495, $ & thenprejudicehasbeenshown.Second,Petitionerneedonlyshow t&!( thattheavailablemitigationcreates areasonableprobability ,(|#* thatone juror wouldhavestruckadifferentbalance.Id. )(%, (emphasisadded).Third,everydefendanthas aright!indeeda +&. constitutionallyprotectedright!toprovidethejurywiththe  mitigatingevidencethathistrialcounseleitherfailedto \ discoverorfailedtooffer,Williams,120S.Ct.at1513, X regardlessofthestrengthofthestatescase,theheinous   natureoftheoffense,ortheseverityoftheaggravators. l  Williams,120S.Ct.at1515.Fourth,forafacttobemitigating  h  itdoesnothavetoberelevanttothecrime!anyof the   diversefrailtiesofhumankind,Woodsonv.NorthCarolina,428 |  U.S.280,304(1976),whichmightcounselinfavorofasentence (x  lessthandeath,_Lockett_Ԁv.Ohio,438U.S.586(1978),are $ mitigating.Williams,120S.Ctat1495.Thelowercourts  prejudiceanalysisviolatedeachofthesefundamentalrules,as D didthisCourtsanalysisinaffirming.Thetotalityofallof @ theprofferedmitigationwasneverconsideredinlightofthe  improperaggravatingcircumstancepresented.ThisCourts H analysisamountedtonothingmorethanaunconstitutionalfinding D thatsomecapitalcaseswarrantdeathregardlessofthe   mitigation.However,theEighthAmendmentjurisprudenceis L!" premiseduponthenotionthat#XXXX|0?##XX?#XXX|0XXXԀtheavailablemitigationevidence "H$  mightwellhaveinfluencedajurors appraisalof $& [petitioners]moralculpability.Williams,120S.Ct.at1515.#XXXX|0L##XXL#LX|0XLԀ P&!( Automaticdeathsentencesviolatethisprinciple.X|0XXX|0 (X#* #X|0XXX|0N#X|0XXX|0  8. ` #X|0XXX|0 O#X|0XXX|0ThisCourtsanalysisofMr.Riveraschallengestothe )%, evidentiaryrulingsmadebythecircuitcourtoverlooksthefacts `+&. andthelaw.Atapriorhearing,theguiltphaseissueofthe  StatesfailuretocomplywiththerequirementsofBradyv. \ Maryland,373U.S.83(1963),andthedefenseattorneysfailure X topresenttheexculpatoryevidencewereaddressed.Inthat   context,thisCourtsaidthatthewitnessinvolvedlefttownand `   didnottellthepolicehewasleavinganddidnotremember  \  telling_Malavenda_Ԁhewasleaving.SlipOpat17.#X|0XXX|0gO#X|0XXX|0ThisCourt   overlooksthefactthatthisCourts1998opiniondidnotrest d  uponPetersavailability,butuponalackofprejudice,i.e. `  Peterstestimonydidnotestablishanalibi.Riverav.State,   717So.2d477,482(Fla.1998)( Thereforeassuming,_arguendo_, h that#X|0XXX|0R#X|0XXX|0ԀRiveraestablisheddeficientperformance,hemuststill d satisfy_Strickland_sprejudiceprong.WefindthatRiverahas  notsatisfiedthatprongofthetest.).Atissue,herewasMr. l _Malavenda_sfailuretoinvestigateandpresentmitigating h evidence.Yet,Mr.Riverawasdeniedtheopportunitytopresent  evidencefromMarkPeterssupportinghisclaimthatMr. p  _Malavanda_sperformancewasdeficientinfailingtosecureMr. !l" Peterspresenceatthepenaltyphase. "$   9. ` ThisCourtviolatedtheprinciplesofWigginswhenit t$& affirmedthetrialcourtsrefusaltoconsiderthattwoofhis  &p!( priorviolentfelonyconvictionshadbeenvacated.#X|0XXX|0T# Theentire '#* postconvictionrecord,viewedasawholeandcumulativeof x)$, mitigationevidencepresentedoriginally,raisedareasonable $+t&.   TRX3'LetterX3'Letter3'Letterluretoinvestigateandpresentmitigating l 3'Letter8.|0.XXddT   probabilitythattheresultofthesentencingproceedingwould  havebeendifferent,Williams,120S.Ctat1495.InRiveras \ case,theentirepostconvictionrecordwasnotviewedasa d whole.Byexcludingconsiderationofthefactthattwoprior   violentfeloniesthathadbeenpresentedtothejuryhadbeen l  vacated,theproperanalysisdidnotoccur.  h    10. ` InaddressingMr.Riverasotherargumentsthatthe   circuitcourterroneouslyexcludedevidence,thisCourt p  overlookedtherecordandmisapprehendedMr.Riverasarguments. l    11. ` AstoMr.Riverashabeaspetition,thisCourtX|0XXX|0  overlookedthefactthatMr.Riverafullypledandprovedthis t claim.SeeClarkv.Crist,"F.3d"(11thCir.July2,2003).  p InconsideringMr.Riverasclaimthathereceivedineffective  assistanceofappellatecounsel,thisCourtdidapiecemeal x analysisthatfailstocomportwiththedueprocessrequirement $t thatcumulativeconsiderationbeafforded.Theconstitutional   guaranteeofeffectiveassistanceofappellatecounselexiststo |  insurethatanadequatetestingoccursinordertoproduceajust (!x" result.Therefusaltoconsideraspectsoftheineffectiveness "$$ claimthatwerepreviouslyconsideredwithoutreferencetothe $& fullcontextofcounselsdeficienciesdoesnotcomportwithdue ,&|!( process.ThisCourtsanalysisoverlookedthisprinciple '(#* detailedin_Kyles_Ԁv.Whitley. )$,   12. ` Theprejudiceprongtoanineffectivenessclaim 0+&. #  #TRX3'LetterX3'Letter3'Letterluretoinvestigateandpresentmitigating l 3'Letterluretoinvestigateandpresentmitigating l T #  requirescumu#X|0XXX|0?^#X|0XXX|0lativeconsiderationofcounselsfailingsanda  determinationastowhetherconfidenceisunderminedinthe \ outcome.Thisdoesnotmeanthatthedefendantmustprovethat X theoutcomewouldhavebeendifferent.ThisCourtsanalysis   misapplied_Strickland_. `    13. ` Mr.RiveraincludedinhisPetitionaclaimpursuantto  \  theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdecisionin_Apprendi_Ԁv.New   Jersey,530U.S.466(2000).InRing,theSupremeCourtheld d  #X|0XXX|0d#X|0XXX|0thattheSixthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution `  requiresthatwhenaggravatingfactorsarestatutorilynecessary   forimpositionofthedeathpenalty,theymustbefoundbeyonda h reasonabledoubtbyajury: d ` [_W]e_ԀoverruleWalton[v.Arizona,497U.S.639(1990),]  totheextentthatitallowsasentencingjudge,  sittingwithoutajury,tofindanaggravating r circumstancenecessaryforimpositionofthedeath H penalty....BecauseArizonasenumerated n aggravatingfactorsoperateasthefunctional D equivalentofanelementofagreateroffense,...  theSixthAmendmentrequiresthattheybefoundbya  jury. |  ` =iRing,536U.S.at609(citationsomitted).Thiswasin (!x" conformitywithitsearlierrulingin_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey, "$$ wheretheSupremeCourtheld, IfaStatemakesanincreaseina $& defendantsauthorizedpunishmentcontingentonthefindingofa ,&|!( fact,thatfactnomatterhowtheStatelabelsitmustbefound '(#* byajurybeyondareasonabledoubt.530U.S.at48283.Ring )$, applied_Apprendi_tothecategoryofcapitalmurdercasesand 0+&.    TRX3'LetterX3'Letter3'Letterluretoinvestigateandpresentmitigating l 3'Letterluretoinvestigateandpresentmitigating l T    concludedanyfactrenderingapersoneligibleforadeath  sentenceisanelementoftheoffense.536U.S.at604,quoting \ _Apprendi_,530U.S.at494( Ineffect,therequiredfinding[of d anaggravatingcircumstance]_expose[d_][Ring]toagreater   punishmentthanthatauthorizedbythejurysguiltyverdict).#X|0XXX|0g#X|0XXX|0Ԁ l  TheSupremeCourthasevenmorerecentlyelaborateduponthe  h  meaningofRing.In_Sattazahn_Ԁv.Pennsylvania,123S.Ct.732,   739(2003),theSupremeCourtexplained: p  ` Putsimply,iftheexistenceofanyfact(otherthana l  priorconviction)increasesthemaximumpunishmentthat B maybeimposedonadefendant,thatfact!nomatterhow  theStatelabelsit!constitutesanelement,andmust  befoundbyajurybeyondareasonabledoubt. t ` ss  14. ` InRing,theSupremeCourtnotedthatArizonawasone  p offivestatesthatcommittedsentencing_factfinding_Ԁandthe  ultimatesentencingdecisiontojudges.Ring,536U.S.at609n. x 6(theotherfourwereidentifiedasColorado,Idaho,Montana, $t andNebraska).TheSupremeCourtfurthernotedthatfour   additionalstateshadhybridcapitalsentencingschemes.Id. |  (Alabama,Delaware,Florida,andIndiana).Subsequently,ithas (!x" beenrecognizedthatadditionalhybridstateswereoverlookedby "$$ theUnitedStatesSupremeCourt.Johnsonv.State,59P.3d450, $& 460(Nev.2002)(underNevadalaw,thejudgedeterminesthe ,&|!( sentenceinacapitalcaseifthejuryisunabletoreturna '(#* unanimousverdictimposingeitheradeathoralifesentence); )$, Statev._Whitfield_,107S.W.3d253(Mo.2003)#X|0XXX|0Ar#X|0XXX|0(underMissourilaw, 0+&. (  (TRX3'LetterX3'Letter3'Letterluretoinvestigateandpresentmitigating l 3'Letterluretoinvestigateandpresentmitigating l T (  thejudgedeterminesthesentenceinacapitalcaseifthejury  isunabletoreturnaunanimousverdictimposingeitheradeath \ oralifesentence).Eveninastatewithjurysentencingin X capitalcases,errorhasbeenfound.In_Esparza_Ԁv.Mitchell,310   F.3d414(6thCir.2002),theSixthCircuitgrantedfederal `  habeasreliefbecausethejurywasnotrequiredtoreturna  \  verdictidentifyingtheaggravatingfactorsthatwerepresentand   thatrenderedthedefendantdeatheligibleunderstatelaw. #  2      ׀In d  _Summerlin_Ԁv.Stewart,#X|0XXX|0y#2003U.S.App.LEXIS18111(9thCir. `  September2,2003)(inbanc),theinbancNinthCircuitconcluded   thatRingannouncedsubstantivecriminallawwhichbydefinition h appliedretroactively.Further,theinbancNinthCircuit d concludedthatRingerrorwasstructuralerrornotsubjectto  harmlesserroranalysis.X|0XXX|0 l Ѐ  15. ` IndenyingMr.Riveraspetition,thisCourtfailedto h lookatthejurisprudencethathasdevelopedinthewakeofRing.  Notsurprisingly,thestateslabeledbytheUnitedStatesSupreme p  asbeinginthesamecategoryasArizonahavegenerally !l" recognizedthatSixthAmendmenterrorpervadestheircapital "$ sentencingschemes.Statev._Fetterly_,52P.3d875(Idaho t$& 2002)(inlightofRing,deathsentencevacatedandremandedfor  furtherproceedings);Statev.Gales,658N.W.2d604,624(Neb. \ 2003)( Itisclearthatthejurymadenoexplicitdetermination X thatanyofthestatutoryaggravatingcircumstanceexistedin   thiscase.Instead,thatdeterminationwasmadebyajudge.); `  _Woldt_Ԁv.People,64P.3d256(Colo.2003)(deathsentencesvacated  \  inconsolidateddirectappealfortwoofthethreeindividuals   sentencedtodeathunder1995schemeprovidingforthreejudge d  paneltoconductcapitalsentencing_factfinding_Ԁandcases `  remandedfortheimpositionoflifesentences);Statev.Ring,65   P.3d915(Ariz.2003)(inaconsolidatedcaseinvolvingthoseon h Arizonasdeathrow,ArizonaSupremeCourtestablishedparameters d forevaluatingeachcaseforharmlesserroranalysis)._ #  3      _ԀEachof  thesestateshasfoundthatthenecessaryfactsunderRingto l renderthedefendantdeatheligiblewerenotmadebythejuryat h theguiltphaseofthecapitalcase.* #  4          16. ` IndenyingMr.RiveraspetitionthisCourtalso p  overlookedthedecisionsfromthosestateslumpedinthesame !l" categoryasFlorida,hybridstates.ForexampleinIndiana,the "$ hybridsentencingschemeisemployednotjustindetermining t$& whethertoimposedeath,butalsoindeterminingwhatsentenceto  imposeinmurdercasesnotreachingthecapitallevel.In \ _Bostnick_Ԁv.State,773N.E.2d266(Ind.2002),theIndiana X SupremeCourtwasfacedwithacaseinwhichthejudgeoverrodea   jurysrecommendationagainstasentenceoflifewithoutparole. `  The_Bostnick_courtconcluded, [t]hejuryduringthesentencing  \  phasewasunabletoreachaunanimousrecommendation,andthus   therewasnojurydeterminationfindingthequalifying d  aggravatingcircumstancesbeyondareasonabledoubt.Id.at `  273.UndertheIndianasentencingscheme,thejudgemadethe   findingoftheaggravatingcircumstancesnecessarytowarrantthe h impositionoflifewithoutparole. Becauseoftheabsenceofa d jurydeterminationthat#X|0XXX|0ހ#X|0XXX|0qualifyingaggravatingcircumstanceswere  provenbeyondareasonabledoubt,wemustthereforevacatethe l trialcourtssentenceoflifewithoutparole.Id.$ #  5      ׀See h _Esparza_Ԁv.Mitchell,310F.3dat420( thejuryneverfoundthe  statutorilyrequiredaggravatingcircumstance). p   ! ! (Eh83,  17. ` AnothercasefurtherilluminatesIndianalawandits !l" 3* 3  3  interplaywithRing.% #  6      #X|0XXX|0c#X|0XXX|0ԀIn_Overstreet_Ԁv.State,783N.E.2d1140,   116061(Ind.2003)(emphasisadded),whileaddressingacapital \ case#X|0XXX|0~#X|0XXX|0,theIndianaSupremeCourtexplained, [_u]nder_Ԁthetermsof X ourdeathpenaltystatute,beforeajurycanrecommendasentence   ofdeath,itmust unanimouslyfindthatoneormoreofthe `  chargedaggravatingcircumstanceswasprovenbeyondareasonable ( x  doubt._& #  7      _ԀIn_Overstreet_,thedefensehadrequestedtohavea $  specialfindingtothiseffectmadebythejury.TheIndiana   SupremeCourtnotedthatonthebasisof_Hildwin_Ԁv.Florida,490 ,|  U.S.638(1989),thetrialcourthaddeniedtherequestedspecial ( verdict.Noreversibleerrorwasfoundbecausethejuryhadbeen  explicitlyinstructedthatthisunanimousfindingbeyonda 0 reasonabledoubtwasnecessarybeforeitcouldreturnadeath , 5* 5  5  recommendation._' #  8      _Ԁ    18. ` Inanotherhybridstate,theDelawarelegislature \ enactedlegislationfollowingthedecisioninRing.Inpending X capitalprosecutions,fourquestionswerecertifiedtothe   DelawareSupremeCourtinlightofthenewlegislationpassedin `  anefforttoconformwithRing.TheDelawareSupremeCourt  \  thereuponundertookareviewofDelawarescapitalsentencing   scheme.Bricev.State,815A.2d314,322(Del.2003).Thenew d  statutorylanguageprovidedthatadeathsentencecouldnotbe `  imposedunless ajury(unlesswaivedbytheparties)first   determinesunanimouslyandbeyondareasonabledoubtthatat h leastonestatutoryaggravatingcircumstancesexists.;j #  9      ׀Further d underDelawarelaw,firstdegreemurderwasdefinedbythe  statuteinsevenalternativeways.DelawareCode,Title11, l 636(a)(17).-6  #  10      ׀AccordingtoDelawarelaw, [_i]n_Ԁanycasewhere h thedefendanthasbeenconvictedofmurderinthefirstdegreein  violationofanyprovisionof636(a)(2)(7)ofthistitle,that \ convictionshallestablishtheexistenceofastatutory X aggravatingcircumstanceandthejury,orjudgewhere   appropriate,shallbesoinstructed.DelawareCode,Title11, `  4209(e)(2).Thus,theDelawarelegislaturehaddefinedfirst  \  degreemurderonthebasisofthepresenceofsixalternative   aggravatingcircumstancesanddeterminedthatafindingbythe d  juryofthepresenceofonethesecircumstancesconstituted `  capitalfirstdegreemurdersubjecttothedeathpenalty.   Accordingly,theDelawareSupremeCourtfoundthattheprovisions h compliedwithRing.Brice,815A.2dat32223._/f #  11      _ d   19. ` InBrice,theDelawareSupremeCourtindicatedthatit  wouldreviewcasesinwhichdeathhadbeenimposedundertheold l lawcasebycasetodeterminewhetheranyRingerrorwasharmless h orwhetherreliefwaswarranted.Subsequently,thecourthas  issuedopinions.Gardenv.State,815A.2d327,342n.4(Del.  2003)(deathsentencevacatedinanoverridecasebecausejudge \ failedtogiveliferecommendationsufficientweight;therefore X theRingchallengewasheldtobemoot);Reyesv.State,819A.2d   305,316(Del.2003)(jurythatreturnedaninetothreedeath `  recommendationhadfirstexplicitlyandunanimouslyfoundduring  \  atheguiltphaseastatutory_aggravator_;thereforereliefwas   denied).Inthesecase,theSixthAmendmentrightof d  confrontationwasneitherimplicatednordiscussed. `    20. ` TheAlabamaSupremeCourthasalsoanalyzeditscapital   sentencingprovisionsinlightofRing.TheAlabamaSupreme h CourthasexplainedthatunderAlabamasstatutorydefinitionof d capitalfirstdegreemurder,thejurymustfindanaggravating  circumstanceattheguiltphaseofacapitaltrialtorendera l defendantdeatheligible.Exparte_Waldrop_,!So.2d!,2002Ala. h LEXIS336,*13(Ala.November22,2002)( Unlessatleastone  aggravatingcircumstanceasdefinedinSection13A549exists, p  thesentenceshallbelifeimprisonmentwithoutparole.); !l" Martinv.State,!So.2d!,2003Ala.Crim.App.LEXIS136,*55 "$ (Ala.App.May30,2003)( thejuryintheguiltphaseentereda t$& verdictfindingMartinguiltyofcapitalmurderbecauseitwas  &p!( committedforpecuniarygain.Murdercommittedforpecuniary '#* gainisalsoanaggravatingcircumstance).Thus,likeDelaware, x)$, Alabamaprovidesthatunlessthereisafindingofanaggravating $+t&. circumstanceattheguiltphaseproceeding,thesentenceislife  imprisonment.ThisclearlydistinguishesAlabamalawfrom \ Floridalawinacriticalfashion. X   21. ` IndenyingMr.Riverashabeaspetition,thisCourt   alsooverlookedthedecisionsfromtwostatesnotmentionedin `  RingthathavefoundreversibleRingerror.Recently,#X|0XXX|0#X|0XXX|0theNevada  \  SupremeCourtfoundthatitscapitalschemewasa hybridscheme   becauseifthejuryfailedtoreturnaunanimousverdict,the d  judgemadethesentencingfindings.Johnsonv.State,59P.3d `  450,460(Nev.2002).Nevadalaw requirestwodistinctfindings   torenderadefendantdeatheligible.Theremustbeatleast h oneaggravatingcircumstanceandnomitigationsufficientto d outweightheaggravatingcircumstances.> #  12      ׀BecauseinJohnson,  thejuryhadbeenunabletoreturnaunanimousverdict,the l NevadaSupremeCourtconcludedthattheerrorwasnotharmless, h anditvacatedthedeathsentence.#X|0XXX|0#X|0XXX|0    22. ` TheMissouriSupremeCourtalsofoundthatitsdeath p  sentencingschemewasa hybridschemebecausethejudgeimposed !l" thesentencewheneverthejurycouldnotreturnaunanimous "$ @* @  @  verdict.ThatCourtexplainedthatinthosecircumstancesRing  wasviolatedbecausethefirstthreestepsoftheMissouri \ procedurefordeterminingdeatheligibility#X|0XXX|0p#X|0XXX|0hadnotbeendecided X beyondareasonabledoubtbyajury:   Inthesecond,or"penalty"phase,thejuryisrequired `  tobeinstructedtofollowthefourstepprocessset 6   outinsection565.030.4:  \  0 ` Thetriershallassessanddeclarethepunishment   atlifeimprisonmentwithouteligibilityfor   probation,parole,orreleaseexceptbyactofthe d  governor:: ` `  0 ` (1)Ifthetrierdoesnotfindbeyondareasonable 6 doubtatleastoneofthestatutoryaggravating   circumstancessetoutinsubsection2ofsection  565.032;orh` `  0 ` (2)Ifthetrierdoesnotfindthattheevidence d inaggravationofpunishment,includingbutnot : limitedtoevidencesupportingthestatutory  aggravatingcircumstanceslistedinsubsection2  ofsection565.032,warrantsimposingthedeath l sentence;orB` `  0 ` (3)Ifthetrierconcludesthatthereisevidence > inmitigationofpunishment,includingbutnot  limitedtoevidencesupportingthestatutory  mitigatingcircumstanceslistedinsubsection3of p  section565.032,whichissufficienttooutweigh F ! theevidenceinaggravationofpunishmentfoundby !l" thetrier;or!B#` `  0 ` (4)Ifthetrierdecidesunderallofthe #% circumstancesnottoassessanddeclarethe t$& punishmentatdeath.J% '` `   Id .Section565.030.4onitsfacerequiresthatsteps &F") 1,2,3,and4bedeterminedagainstdefendantbeforea ',#* deathsentencecanbeimposed. Id. ; see  _Whitfield_,837 ($+ S.W.2d503,515(Mo.banc1992) . )$,  Step1. Step1requiresthetrieroffacttofindthe `+&. presenceofoneormorestatutoryaggravatingfactors D,'/ E* E  E  setoutinsection565.032.2.BoththeStateandMr.  _Whitfield_Ԁagreethatthisisafactthatnormallymust  befoundbythejuryinordertoimposeasentenceof \ death. 2 TheStatecontendsthatsteps2,3,and4merelycall . forthejurytogiveitssubjectiveopinionasto   whetherthedeathpenaltyisappropriate,however,not   tomakefindingsastowhetherthefactualpredicates `  forimposingthedeathpenaltyarepresent.Iturges 6   thattheprinciplessetoutin Ring arenotoffended  \  evenifthejudgeratherthanthejurydeterminesthose  B  threesteps.ThisCourtdisagrees.    Step2. Step2requiresthetrieroffact(whetherjury   orjudge)tofindthattheevidenceinaggravationof f  punishment,includingbutnotlimitedtoevidence <  supportingthestatutoryaggravatingfactors,warrants b impositionofthedeathpenalty.Asnoted,theState 8 arguesthatthisstepmerelycallsforasubjective  opinionbythetrieroffact,notafinding.But,the  StatefailstonotethatthisCourtrejectedthisvery j argumentinitsopiniononMr._Whitfield_'sappealof @ hisinitialconviction,inwhichitremandedforthe f newtrialatissuehere.Inthatdecision,thisCourt < heldthatstep2requiresa"findingoffactbythe  jury,notadiscretionarydecision." _Whitfield_,837  S.W.2dat515 .Thisholdingissupportedbytheplain ~ languageofthestatute.Inordertofulfillitsduty, b thetrieroffactisrequiredtomakeacasebycase 8 factualdeterminationbasedonalltheaggravating ^ factsthetrieroffactfindsarepresentinthecase. 4 Thisisnecessarilyadeterminationtobemadeonthe    factsofeachcase.Accordingly,under Ring ,itisnot  ! permissibleforajudgetomakethisfactual v!" determination.Thejuryisrequiredtodetermine L"# whetherthestatutoryandotheraggravatorsshownby (#x$ theevidencewarrantstheimpositionofdeath.... #N%  Step3. Instep3thejuryisrequiredtodetermine %!' whethertheevidenceinmitigationoutweighsthe &!( evidenceinaggravationfoundinsteps1and2.Ifit r'") does,thedefendantisnoteligiblefordeath,andthe H(#* jurymustreturnasentenceoflifeimprisonment.While )n$+ theStateoncemorearguesthatthismerelycallsfor )D%, thejurytoofferitssubjectiveanddiscretionary *&- opinionratherthantomakeafactualfinding,this +&. D* D  D  Courtagaindisagrees.  Theanalysisundertakeninthreerecentdecisionsby \ otherstatecourtsoflastresort,interpretingsimilar 2 statutes,isinstructive.In _Woldt_Ԁv.People,64P.3d X 256(Colo.2003) ,theSupremeCourtofColorado > reversedthedeathsentencesoftwocapitaldefendants  " afterdeterminingthatColorado'sthreejudgecapital   sentencingstatutewasunconstitutionalinlightof ~   Ring .Colorado'sdeathpenaltystatute,like T   Missouri's,requiresthefactfindertocompletea :   fourstepprocessbeforedeathmaybeimposed.First, `  atleastonestatutory_aggravator_Ԁmustbefound. 6  Second,whethermitigatingfactorsexistmustbe   determined.Third,mitigatingfactorsmustnotoutweigh   theaggravatingfactors.Finally,whetherdeathisthe h  appropriatepunishmentisconsidered. >  TheSupremeCourtofColoradodescribedthefirstthree : ofthesefourstepsasfindingsoffactthatare  "prerequisitestoafindingbythethreejudgepanel  thatadefendantwaseligiblefordeath." _Woldt_,64 l P.3dat265 .Itnotedthatstatesaresometimesgrouped R into"weighingstates"thatrequirethejurytoweigh 6 theaggravatingcircumstancesagainstthosein  \ mitigationinarrivingattheirdeterminationof 2 punishment,and"nonweighingstates."Itexplained  that,whileinsteps1,2,and3thejuryispermitted  toconsiderandweighaggravatorsandmitigators,and d tothatextentColorado'sprocessislikethatusedin : weighingstates,Coloradoisanonweighingstatein ` that,instep4,inwhichthejurydecideswhetherto 6 imposedeathortogivealifesentence,thejuryis    permittedtoconsideralloftheevidencewithoutbeing  ! requiredtogivespecialsignificancetotheweightof h!" statutoryaggravatorsormitigators. Id.at26364 . >"# Thislaststepthus"affordsthesentencingbody $#t$ unlimiteddiscretiontosentencethedefendanttolife #J% imprisonmentinsteadofdeath." Id.at265 .Because $ & Colorado'sdeathpenaltystatuterequiredathreejudge %!' paneltomakethefirstthreeofthesefindings,the &!( statutewasdeclaredunconstitutional. Id.at26667 . b'") Similarly,in Johnsonv.State,59P.3d450(Nev. )n$+ 2002) , Nevada'sSupremeCourtconsideredthe *T%, constitutionalityofitscapitalsentencingschemein *8&- lightof Ring .Itssentencingschemeprovidesfora +'. H* H  H  threejudgepaneltodeterminepunishmentifthejury  isunabletodoso. Johnson notedthatNevada  "statutorylawrequirestwodistinctfindingstorender l adefendantdeatheligible:'thejuryorthepanelof B judgesmayimposeasentenceofdeathonlyifitfinds h atleastoneaggravatingcircumstanceandfurtherfinds > thattherearenomitigatingcircumstancessufficient   tooutweightheaggravatingcircumstanceor   circumstancesfound.'" Johnson,59P.3dat460  p  (citationomitted). V    Johnson determinedtherequisitestatutoryfindingthat b  themitigatingcircumstancesarenotsufficientto H  outweightheaggravatingcircumstancesisatleast"in   partafactualdetermination,notmerelydiscretionary   weighing." Id.at460 .Itheldthat,asaresult,the z  ruleannouncedin Ring requiredajuryratherthana `  judgetodeterminethemitigatingaswellasthe F aggravatingfactorissues. Id. l  Finally,onremandfromtheUnitedStatesSupreme ( Court,theSupremeCourtofArizonarejectedthe  state'scontentionthattherequirementofArizonalaw  Єthatthecourtweighmitigatingcircumstances Z againstaggravatingcircumstancesdidnotrequirea 0 factualdetermination,stating: V 0 ` Inboththesupersededandcurrentcapital  sentencingschemes,thelegislatureassignedto  thesamefactfinderresponsibilityfor d consideringbothaggravatingandmitigating @ factors,aswellasfordeterminingwhetherthe l mitigatingfactors,whencomparedwiththe H  aggravators,callforleniency.Neitherajudge,  $! underthesupersededstatutes,northejury,under !" thenewstatutes,canimposethedeathpenalty "# unlessthatentityconcludesthatthemitigating \#$ factorsarenotsufficientlysubstantialtocall 2$% forleniency._A.R.S._Ԁ[sections]13703.E %X & (Supp.2002)and13703.F(Supp.2001).Theprocess %.!' involvedindeterminingwhethermitigatingfactors &"( prohibitimposingthedeathpenaltyplaysan '") importantpartinArizona'scapitalsentencing `(#* scheme.6)$+` `   RingII,65P.3dat943 (emphasisadded).TheCourt *2&- continued: +'. Ї0 ` WewillnotspeculateabouthowtheState's  proposal[toallowthejudgetomakethese  findings]wouldimpactthisessentialprocess. \ _Clemons_Ԁv.Mississippi,494U.S.738,754,110 2 S.Ct.1441,1451,108L.Ed.2d725(1990) ('Insome ^ situations,astateappellatecourtmayconclude B thatpeculiaritiesinacasemake   appellate...harmlesserroranalysisextremely   speculativeorimpossible.');seealsoJohnsonv. t  Nevada,59P.3d450(Nev.2002)(asappliedto P   Nevadalaw,Ring...requires[a]jurytoweigh , |  mitigatingandaggravatingfactorsunderNevada's X  statuterequiringthefactfindertofurtherfind .  whethermitigatingcircumstancesaresufficientto   outweightheaggravatingcircumstances). ` `   Id. Accordingly,theCourtheldthat,evenwerethe 6  presenceofastatutory_aggravator_Ԁconcededornot l contested,_resentencing_Ԁwouldberequiredunlessthe B courtfoundthatthefailureofthejurytomakethese  factualfindingswasharmlessontheparticularfacts  ofthecase. Id. Thiswasanecessaryresultof t applying Ring's holdingthat"[_c]apital_ Z defendants...areentitledtoajurydeterminationof @ anyfactonwhichthelegislatureconditionsan f increaseintheirmaximumpunishment." Ring,536U.S. < at589 . " Missouri'ssteps1,2,and3aretheequivalentofthe  firstthreefactualdeterminationsrequiredunder b Colorado'sdeathpenaltystatute,sothat,asin 8 Colorado,thejuryistoldtofindwhetherthereare ^ mitigatingandaggravatingcircumstancesandtoweigh 4  themtodecidewhetherthedefendantiseligiblefor  ! thedeathpenalty.Thesethreestepsarealsosimilar !" totheaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstancefindings f"# requiredunderNevadaandArizonalaw.Asinthose <#$ states,thesethreestepsrequirefactualfindingsthat $b% areprerequisitestothetrieroffact'sdetermination $8 & thatadefendantisdeatheligible. %!' Statev._Whitfield_,2003WL21386276(Mo.June17,2003) j'") (footnoteomitted). )f$+ ! ! (Uh8 8  23. ` ThethreestepsinFloridasstatute,likethestepsin *&- Missouri,also requirefactualfindingsthatareprerequisites  tothetrieroffactsdeterminationthatadefendantisdeath \ eligible.Step1intheFloridaprocedurerequiresdetermining X whetheratleastoneaggravatingcircumstanceexists.Asin   Missouri,Colorado,Indiana,Delaware,Arizona,andNevada,this `  stepinvolvesafactualdeterminationwhichisaprerequisiteto  \  renderingthedefendantdeatheligible.     24. ` Step2intheFloridaprocedurerequiresdetermining d  whether sufficientaggravatingcircumstancesexisttojustify `  impositionofdeath.0 #  13      ׀MissourisStep2isindistinguishable,   requiringadeterminationofwhethertheevidenceofall h aggravatingcircumstances warrantsimposingthedeathsentence. d Thisstepisobviouslynottheultimatestepofdetermining  whetherdeathwillornotbeimposedbecauseotherstepsremain. l Rather,inFloridaaswellasMissouri,thisstepinvolvesa h factualdeterminationwhichisaprerequisitetorenderinga  defendantdeatheligible. p    25. ` Step3intheFloridaprocedurerequiresdetermining !l" whether thereareinsufficientmitigatingcircumstancesto "$ outweightheaggravatingcircumstances.Missourisand t$& ColoradosStep3,aswellasNevadasandArizonasStep2,are  &p!( identical,requiringadeterminationofwhethermitigating '#* circumstancesoutweighaggravatingcircumstances.Again,this  stepisnottheultimatedeterminationofwhetherornotto \ imposedeathbecauseanadditionalstepremains.Rather,in X Floridaaswellastheseotherstates,thisstepinvolvesa   factualdeterminationwhichisaprerequisitetorenderinga `  defendantdeatheligible.  \    26. ` InFlorida,asinMissouriandtheotherstates   discussedin_Whitfield_,the_sentencer_Ԁdoesnotconsiderthe d  ultimatequestionofwhetherornottoimposedeathuntilthe `  eligibilitystepsarecompleted.Afterthefirstthreesteps,   theFloridastatutedirectsthejurytodetermine, [_b]ased_Ԁon h theseconsiderations,whetherthedefendantshouldbesentenced d tolifeimprisonmentordeath.Section921.141(2)(c),Fla.  Stat.Thestructureofthestatuteclearlyestablishesthatthe l stepswhichoccurbeforethisdeterminationarenecessarytomake h thedefendanteligibleforthisultimatedetermination,thatis,  torenderthedefendant#X|0XXX|0#X|0XXX|0Ԁdeatheligible. p    27. ` Thequestion#X|0XXX|0m#X|0XXX|0whichRingv.Arizonadecidedwaswhat !l" factsconstitute elementsincapitalsentencingproceedings. "$ FollowingtheSupremeCourtsdecisionin_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey, t$& 530U.S.466(2000),Mr.Ringraisedan_Apprendi_challengetohis  &p!( deathsentence.Inaddressingthatchallenge,theArizona '#* SupremeCourtstatedthattheUnitedStatesSupremeCourts x)$, descriptionofArizonascapitalsentencingschemecontainedin $+t&. Waltonv.Arizona,497U.S.639(1990),wasincorrectand  providedthecorrectconstructionofthescheme.Ring,122S. \ Ct.at2436.Baseduponthiscorrectconstruction,theUnited X StatesSupremeCourtthendeterminedthatWalton cannotsurvive   thereasoningof_Apprendi_.Ring,122S.Ct.at2440. `    28. ` ThebulkoftheRingopinionaddresseshowtodetermine  \  whetherafactisan elementofacrime.SeeRing,122S.Ct.   at243743.ThequestioninRingwasnotwhethertheSixth d  Amendmentrequiresajurytodecideelements.Thathasbeena `  givensincetheBillofRightswasadopted.Thequestionwas   whatfactsareelements.JusticeThomasexplainedthisinhis h concurringopinionin_Apprendi_: d  ` Thiscaseturnsontheseeminglysimplequestion  ofwhatconstitutesa crime.UndertheFederal  Constitution, theaccusedhastheright(1) tobe l informedofthenatureandcauseoftheaccusation B (thatis,thebasisonwhichheisaccusedofacrime), h (2)tobe heldtoanswerforacapital,orotherwise > infamouscrimeonlyonanindictmentorpresentmentof  agrandjury,and(3)tobetriedby animpartialjury  oftheStateanddistrictwhereinthecrimeshallhave p  beencommitted._Amdts_.5and6.SeealsoArt.III, F ! [Sec.]2,cl.3( TheTrialofallCrimes...shall !l" bebyJury).WiththeexceptionoftheGrandJury !B# Clause,see_Hurtado_Ԁv.California,110U.S.516,538. "$ ..(1884),theCourthasheldthattheseprotections #% applyinstateprosecutions.Herringv.NewYork,422 t$& U.S.853,857,andn.7...(1975).Further,the J% ' Courthasheldthatdueprocessrequiresthatthejury  &p!( findbeyondareasonabledoubteveryfactnecessaryto &F") constitutethecrime.Inre_Winship_,397U.S.358,364 '#* ...(1970). (#+  ` Alloftheseconstitutionalprotectionsturnon N*%- determiningwhichfactsconstitutethe crimethat *+z&. is,whichfactsarethe elementsor ingredientsof ,V'/ acrime.Inorderforanaccusationofacrime  (whetherbyindictmentorsomeotherform)tobeproper  underthecommonlaw,andthusproperunderthe b codificationofthecommonlawrightsintheFifthand 8 SixthAmendments,itmustallegeallelementsofthat ^ crime;likewise,inorderforajurytrialofacrime 4 tobeproper,allelementsofthecrimemustbeproved   tothejury(and,under_Winship_,provedbeyonda   reasonabledoubt). f  _Apprendi_,120S.Ct.at236768(Thomas,J.,concurring)  b  (emphasisadded).JusticeThomasexplainedthatcourtshave    longhadtoconsiderwhichfactsareelements,butthatonce j  thatquestionisanswered, itisthenasimplemattertoapply f  thatanswertowhateverconstitutionalrightmaybeatissueina  casehere,_Winship_andtherighttotrialbyjury.Id.at n 2368. j   29. ` Theessenceofcriminallawisthedefinitionofthe  offense.Jonesv.UnitedStates,526U.S.227(1999),construed r thefederalstatuteatissueinthatcase,andstatedthatfacts n whichincreasethemaximumpunishmentforanoffenseareelements  oftheoffense._Apprendi_appliedthewellestablishedrulethat v  elementsmustbefoundbyajuryanddeterminedthatthe "!r" sentencingfactoridentifiedbytheNewJerseylegislaturewasin "$ factanelement.Ringmerelyheldthatbaseduponthe z$& clarificationoftheArizonastatuteprovidedbytheArizona &&v!( SupremeCourt,aggravatingcircumstancesinArizonawereelements '"#* subjecttotheSixthAmendmentrighttoajurytrial. ~)$,   30. ` Ringsrequirementthatjuries,notjudges,findthe *+z&. elementsofthechargeisderivedfromancientprinciplesoflaw:   Theprinciplethatthejurywerethejudgesoffactandthe \ judgesthedecidersoflawwasstatedasanestablishedprinciple X asearlyas1628byCoke.See1E.Coke,InstitutesoftheLaws   ofEngland155b(1628).Jones,526U.S.at247.Waltondidnot `  contravenethoseprinciplesbutsimplymisreadtheArizona  \  statute.TheRingdecisionmerelyrejuvenatedthelongstanding   rulewhichWaltontemporarilyrejected. d    31. ` TheFramersoftheBillofRightsincludedtheSixth `  Amendmentsguaranteeofarighttojurytrialasanessential   protectionagainstgovernmentoppression. Fearofunchecked h power,sotypicalofourStateandFederalGovernmentsinother d respects,foundexpressioninthecriminallawinthisinsistence  uponcommunityparticipationinthedeterminationofguiltor l innocence.Duncanv.Louisiana,391U.S.145,156(1968). h Onlybymaintainingtheintegrityofthe_factfinding_Ԁfunction   doesthejury standbetweentheaccusedandapotentially |  arbitraryorabusiveGovernmentthatisincommandofthe (!x" criminalsanction.UnitedStatesv.MartinLinenSupplyCo., "$$ 430U.S.564,572(1977).Thus,theadoptionofthejurytrial $& rightintheBillofRightsestablishestheFoundersrecognition 8&!( thatajurytrialismorereliablethanabenchtrial. '4#*   32. ` JustasJusticeThomasexplainedin_Apprendi_,therewas )$, noquestioninRingthatthejurytrialrightappliesto <+&. elements.ThedisputeinRinginvolvedwhatwasanelement.  Thus,thequestioninRingisakintoastatutoryconstruction \ issue,and retroactivityisnotatissue._Fiore_Ԁv.White,531 X U.S.225,226(2001);_Bunkley_Ԁv.Florida,123S.Ct.2020,2023   (2003).Thatis,theSixthAmendmentrighttohaveajurydecide `  elementsisabedrock,indisputableright.Mr.Riverawas  \  entitledtothisSixthAmendmentprotectionatthetimeofhis   trial.TheSixthAmendmentguaranteesnotonlytherighttoa d  jurytrial,butalsotherightofconfrontation.Ringsimply `  clarifiedthatfactsrenderingadefendanteligibleforadeath   sentenceareelementsofcapitalmurderandthereforesubjectto h theSixthAmendmentguaranteesthatareapplicabletothestates. d   33. ` TherulinginRingconcernsanissueofsubstantive  criminallaw.InconcludingthattheSixthAmendmentrequires l thatthejury,ratherthanthejudge,determinetheexistenceof h aggravatingfactors,theSupremeCourtdescribedaggravating  factorsas thefunctionalequivalentofanelementofagreater p  offense.Ring,122S.Ct.at2243(citing_Apprendi_Ԁv.New !l" Jersey,530U.S.466,494,n.19(2000)).Ringclarifiedthe "$$ elementsofthe greateroffenseofcapitalmurder.As $& explainedabove,Ringdidnotdecideaproceduralquestion(i.e., 8&!( whethertheSixthAmendmentrequiresthatjuriesdecide '4#* elements),butasubstantivequestion(whatisanelement). )$, Thus,retroactiveapplicationisrequiredunder_Bousley_Ԁv.United <+&. States,523U.S.614(1998),becausetherulingaddressesa  matterofsubstantivecriminallaw,notaproceduralrule.#X|0XXX|0#X|0XXX|0ԀThis h CourtoverlookedthiswhendenyingMr.Riveraspetition. d   35. ` InrejectingMr.RiverasargumentthatthisCourt   erroneouslyfoundtheconsiderationofanimproperaggravating l  circumstancetobeharmless,thisCourtoverlookedthedecision  h  in_Esparza_Ԁv.Mitchell,310F.3dat42223( TheStatesargument   thattheerrorherecanbeexcusedasharmlesswouldleadtothe p  conclusionthatany,orall,elementsrequiredbyacapital l  sentencingsystemmaybesuppliedbyjudgesratherthanthe  jury). t ! ! 8(eh88   36. ` ThisCourtoverlookedthepostRingjurisprudencefrom  p otherstateandfederalcourts.Thesedecisionsdemonstratethat  thisCourthaserroneouslydeniedMr.Riverasargumentsthathe x wasdeprivedofhisSixthAmendmentrightsathis_resentencing_ $t andthathisdeathsentencewasunconstitutionallyimposed.#X|0XXX|0*#X|0XXX|0   #X|0XXX|0]0#X|0XXX|0  WHEREFORE,Mr.Rivera,byandthroughundersignedcounsel, |  respectfullyrequeststhisCourtgrantarehearingandreconsider (!x" theopinionofSeptember11,2003. "$$ #X|0XXX|00#X|0XXX|0  IHEREBYCERTIFYthatatruecopyoftheforegoingMotion $& forRehearinghasbeenfurnishedbyUnitedStatesMail,first ,&|!( classpostageprepaid,toCelia_Terenzio_,AssistantAttorney '(#* General,#X|0XXX|01#1515N._Flagler_ԀDrive,Suite900,WestPalmBeach, )$, Florida33409X|0XXX|0,onSeptember26,2003.#X|0XXX|03#X|0XXX|0 p  0+&.    `     h   Respectfullysubmitted,     `     h      p      x    `     h   ?UI' hdE1h? 2 _A   `     h   MARTINJ.MCCLAIN _    `     h   SpecialAssistantCCRCSouth 5   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#FloridaBarNo.0754773 [(#(#    `     h   141NE30th_Steet_Ԁ  1   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#FortLauderdale,FL33334 (#(#   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#(305)9848344  (#(#    `     h   OFFICEOFTHECAPITALCOLLATERAL 9     0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#REGIONALCOUNSELFORTHE_ (#(#   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#SOUTHERNREGION5 (#(#    `     h   101NE3rdAve.,Suite400      `     h   FortLauderdale,FL33301      `     h   (954)7131284 g     `     h   CounselforMr.Rivera#X|0XXX|04#