WPC )VHڡϙ)A21+K<~W"ݍ:z`ja ))ƥ6aaxExĻ/Kg*>EVܣD59m*Ţ߂xcOq'Yl#50umVLcZ@rY^Ve%ʙa/o1k5 ۉ\@ 2}fgbauu1VL呡=nHӘR@1ywR!?+Fŝ?V.ɫ]A|D\ZL}G% RYZ϶jy*lHrōYzz|,#b~$" *UU|L&|6o+FJ+ň!rd{˟y"0j>"6QX1C*s-AYj0Eہas;+gH(m#UNy % 0: 0 1u U:!EB!B! 0UD!! 0U_" 0U" 0= # D+F# AQq#q# # 0(# 0C# 0<$ 0*% 0& 0&^ 'w'4' B(#(2( m4( 0K( 0-) 0 * 0* 0+ 0, 0s- 0L. 0"/ 0/ 00 01 0\2 0#3 03 04 05 0o6 0A7 08 08 09 0k: 0n.;.; 1;U"8#< 72[< 72< 0c< 1"= 72= 1= 72b> 1> 72? 1M? 72?U6@<@  R@ 0s_@ 0_@ 0_1A 0_A 0_A 0_NB 0_B 0_ C ZkCfC Z+DD Z@EE Z5FFN(G N*GbxG ZG4H ZHII *J 0s.J 0_J 0_K 0__K 0_K 0_L 0_|L 0_L 0s:M 0_M 0_ N 0_kN 0_N 0_)O 0_O 0_O 0sFP 0_P 0_Q 0_wQ 0_Q 0_5R 0_R 0_R 0sRS 0_S 0_$T 0_T 0_T 0_AU 0_U 0_U 0s^V 0_V 0_0W 0_W 0_W 0_MX 0_X 0_ Y 0sjY 0_Y 0_+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  - :Z*,z0Backup d3|x3U2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  22+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2  <:Default ParaXXXXXX(CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.?a 9Z+ Courier New 9A.i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.>A.(CEKQW]cioAutoList4A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.@A.(CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.BA.(ʽCEKQW]cioAutoList5A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.DA.<6X9`(Courier New   1<6 :AutoList51[1  23  0..<#:AutoList51[2  23  <#M:AutoList51[3  23  <#:AutoList51[4  23  <#M:AutoList51[5  23  <#:AutoList51[6  23  <#M:AutoList51[7  23  <#:AutoList51[8  23  RHeath v. Jones, 941 F.2d 1126, 1134 (11t1 \_}{ulexpndtw-3Heathv.Jones}{expnd0, 941F.2d1126(11thCir.1991)TSheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 351 (1 _}{ulexpndtw-3_Sheppard_Ԁv.Maxwell}{expnd0, }ri0slmult0tx-720faautolin0{expnd0384  U.S.333,351(1966)VEstelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 504 (1 _}{ulexpndtw-3Estellev.Williams}{expnd0, }ri0slmult0tx-720faautolin0{expnd0425U.S.  501,504(1976)XHolbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 570 (191 _}{ulexpndtw-3Holbrookv.Flynn}{expnd0, }ri0slmult0tx-720faautolin0{expnd0475U.S.  560,570(1986)[Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961)1 X_ }{ulexpndtw-3Irvinv.Dowd}{expnd0, 366U.S.717(1961)]Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 726 (1 _}{ulexpndtw-3_Rideau_Ԁv.Louisiana}{expnd0, }ri0slmult0tx-720faautolin0{expnd0373U.S.  723,726(1963)_Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 726 (1 _}{ulexpndtw-3_Rideau_Ԁv.Louisiana}{expnd0, }ri0slmult0keepntx-720faautolin0{expnd0373  U.S.723(1963)Coleman v. Kemp, 778<6 :AutoList34[1  23  0..<#:AutoList34[2  23  <#M:AutoList34[3  23  <#:AutoList34[4  23  <#M:AutoList34[5  23  <#:AutoList34[6  23  <#M:AutoList34[7  23  <#:AutoList34[8  23  <6 :AutoList50[1  23  0..<#:AutoList50[2  23  <#M:AutoList50[3  23  <#:AutoList50[4  23  <#M:AutoList50[5  23  <#:AutoList50[6  23  <#M:AutoList50[7  23  <#:AutoList50[8  23  <6 :AutoList49[1  23  0..<#:AutoList49[2  23  <#M:AutoList49[3  23  <#:AutoList49[4  23  <#M:AutoList49[5  23  <#:AutoList49[6  23  <#M:AutoList49[7  23  <#:AutoList49[8  23  <6 :AutoList48[1  23  0..<#:AutoList48[2  23  <#M:AutoList48[3  23  <#:AutoList48[4  23  <#M:AutoList48[5  23  <#:AutoList48[6  23  <#M:AutoList48[7  23  <#:AutoList48[8  23  <6 :AutoList47[1  23  0..<#:AutoList47[2  23  <#M:AutoList47[3  23  <#:AutoList47[4  23  <#M:AutoList47[5  23  <#:AutoList47[6  23  <#M:AutoList47[7  23  <#:AutoList47[8  23  <6 :AutoList46[1  23  0..<#:AutoList46[2  23  <#M:AutoList46[3  23  <#:AutoList46[4  23  <#M:AutoList46[5  23  <#:AutoList46[6  23  <#M:AutoList46[7  23  <#:AutoList46[8  23  <6 :AutoList45[1  23  0..<#:AutoList45[2  23  <#M:AutoList45[3  23  <#:AutoList45[4  23  <#M:AutoList45[5  23  <#:AutoList45[6  23  <#M:AutoList45[7  23  <#:AutoList45[8  23  <6 :AutoList44[1  23  0..<#:AutoList44[2  23  <#M:AutoList44[3  23  <#:AutoList44[4  23  <#M:AutoList44[5  23  <#:AutoList44[6  23  <#M:AutoList44[7  23  <#:AutoList44[8  23  <6 :AutoList43[1  23  0..<#:AutoList43[2  23  <#M:AutoList43[3  23  <#:AutoList43[4  23  <#M:AutoList43[5  23  <#:AutoList43[6  23  <#M:AutoList43[7  23  <#:AutoList43[8  23  <6 :AutoList42[1  23  0..<#:AutoList42[2  23  <#M:AutoList42[3  23  <#:AutoList42[4  23  <#M:AutoList42[5  23  <#:AutoList42[6  23  <#M:AutoList42[7  23  <#:AutoList42[8  23  <6 :AutoList41[1  23  0..<#:AutoList41[2  23  <#M:AutoList41[3  23  <#:AutoList41[4  23  <#M:AutoList41[5  23  <#:AutoList41[6  23  <#M:AutoList41[7  23  <#:AutoList41[8  23  <6 :AutoList40[1  23  0..<#:AutoList40[2  23  <#M:AutoList40[3  23  <#:AutoList40[4  23  <#M:AutoList40[5  23  <#:AutoList40[6  23  <#M:AutoList40[7  23  <#:AutoList40[8  23  <6 :AutoList39[1  23  0..<#:AutoList39[2  23  <6 :AutoList21[1  23  0..<#:AutoList21[2  23  <#M:AutoList21[3  23  <#:AutoList21[4  23  <#M:AutoList21[5  23  <#:AutoList21[6  23  <#M:AutoList21[7  23  <#:AutoList21[8  23  <6 :AutoList20[1  23  0..<#:AutoList20[2  23  <#M:AutoList20[3  23  <#:AutoList20[4  23  <#M:AutoList20[5  23  <#:AutoList20[6  23  <#M:AutoList20[7  23  <#:AutoList20[8  23  <6 :AutoList19[1  23  0..<#:AutoList19[2  23  <#M:AutoList19[3  23  <#:AutoList19[4  23  <#M:AutoList19[5  23  <#:AutoList19[6  23  <#M:AutoList19[7  23  <#:AutoList19[8  23  <#M:AutoList39[3  23  <#:AutoList39[4  23  <#M:AutoList39[5  23  <#:AutoList39[6  23  <#M:AutoList39[7  23  <#:AutoList39[8  23  <6 :AutoList38[1  23  0..<#:AutoList38[2  23  <#M:AutoList38[3  23  <#:AutoList38[4  23  <#M:AutoList38[5  23  <#:AutoList38[6  23  <#M:AutoList38[7  23  <#:AutoList38[8  23  <6 :AutoList37[1  23  0..<#:AutoList37[2  23  <#M:AutoList37[3  23  <#:AutoList37[4  23  <#M:AutoList37[5  23  <#:AutoList37[6  23  <#M:AutoList37[7  23  <#:AutoList37[8  23  <6 :AutoList36[1  23  0..<#:AutoList36[2  23  <#M:AutoList36[3  23  <#:AutoList36[4  23  <#M:AutoList36[5  23  <#:AutoList36[6  23  <#M:AutoList36[7  23  <#:AutoList36[8  23  <6 :AutoList35[1  23  0..<#:AutoList35[2  23  <#M:AutoList35[3  23  <#:AutoList35[4  23  <#M:AutoList35[5  23  <#:AutoList35[6  23  <#M:AutoList35[7  23  <#:AutoList35[8  23  <6 :AutoList33[1  23  0..<#:AutoList33[2  23  <#M:AutoList33[3  23  <#:AutoList33[4  23  <#M:AutoList33[5  23  <#:AutoList33[6  23  <#M:AutoList33[7  23  <#:AutoList33[8  23  <6 :AutoList32[1  23  0..<#:AutoList32[2  23  <#M:AutoList32[3  23  <#:AutoList32[4  23  <#M:AutoList32[5  23  <#:AutoList32[6  23  <#M:AutoList32[7  23  <#:AutoList32[8  23  <6 :AutoList31[1  23  0..<#:AutoList31[2  23  <#M:AutoList31[3  23  <#:AutoList31[4  23  <#M:AutoList31[5  23  <#:AutoList31[6  23  <#M:AutoList31[7  23  <#:AutoList31[8  23  <6 :AutoList30[1  23  0..<#:AutoList30[2  23  <#M:AutoList30[3  23  <#:AutoList30[4  23  <#M:AutoList30[5  23  <#:AutoList30[6  23  <#M:AutoList30[7  23  <#:AutoList30[8  23  <6 :AutoList27[1  23  0..<#:AutoList27[2  23  <#M:AutoList27[3  23  <#:AutoList27[4  23  <#M:AutoList27[5  23  <#:AutoList27[6  23  <#M:AutoList27[7  23  <#:AutoList27[8  23  <6 :AutoList26[1  23  0..<#:AutoList26[2  23  <#M:AutoList26[3  23  <#:AutoList26[4  23  <#M:AutoList26[5  23  <#:AutoList26[6  23  <#M:AutoList26[7  23  <#:AutoList26[8  23  <6 :AutoList24[1  23  0..<#:AutoList24[2  23  <#M:AutoList24[3  23  <#:AutoList24[4  23  <#M:AutoList24[5  23  <#:AutoList24[6  23  <#M:AutoList24[7  23  <#:AutoList24[8  23  <6 :AutoList23[1  23  0..<#:AutoList23[2  23  <#M:AutoList23[3  23  <#:AutoList23[4  23  <#M:AutoList23[5  23  <#:AutoList23[6  23  <#M:AutoList23[7  23  <#:AutoList23[8  23  <Q 9Z+.Courier New Regular<6 :AutoList28[1  23  0..<#:AutoList28[2  23  <#M:AutoList28[3  23  <#:AutoList28[4  23  <#M:AutoList28[5  23  <#:AutoList28[6  23  <#M:AutoList28[7  23  <#:AutoList28[8  23  <+ }:AutoList2[1]23  0..<\:AutoList2[2]23  <\:AutoList2[3]23  <\:AutoList2[4]23  <\:AutoList2[5]23  <\:AutoList2[6]23  <\:AutoList2[7]23  <\:AutoList2[8]23  <\:AutoList1[1]23  <\:AutoList1[2]23  <\:AutoList1[3]23  <\:AutoList1[4]23  <\:AutoList1[5]23  < M!:AutoList1[6]0..0..0..0..0..23  0..< ^:AutoList1[7]0..0..0..0..0..0..23  0..< I:AutoList1[8]0..0..0..0..0..0..0..23  0.. EGMSY_ekqAutoList191.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. EGMSY_ekqAutoList201.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. EGMSY_ekqAutoList211.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(^!2($ !USUS.,  XXXԀ  0  9:;<=>?@ EGMSY_ekqAutoList231.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. | ($USUS.,xXXXԀ  1    _:XXxSeeRing,slipop.At1718(rejectingargumentthatfinding  ofaggravatingcircumstancesdidnotincreasestatutorymaximum  because Arizonafirstdegreemurderstatuteauthorizesa x maximumpenaltyofdeathonlyinaformalsense(quoting N Apprendi,530U.S.at541(OConnor,J.,concurring)).Boththe $t FloridaandArizonastatutesprovideforarangeofpunishments, J themostsevereofwhichisdeath.CompareFla.Stat.sec.   775.082(1)(1979)withArizonaRev.stat.Ann.Sec.131105(C).   #xXX:#12345678 EGMSY_ekqAutoList241.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.  ($USUS.,xXXXԀ  2    _:XXxInMills,theFloridaSupremeCourtsaidthat theplain  languageof_Apprendi_indicatesthatthecaseisnotintendedto  applytocapital[sentencing]schemes.Mills,786So.2dat537#xXX:#  ($USUS.,xXXXԀ  3    _:XXxIndeed,asJustice_Pariente_Ԁobservedinherconcurringopinion  in_Bottoson_Ԁv.Moore,CaseNo.SC021455,OrderGrantingStayof  ExecutionandSettingOralArgument(July8,2002), Untilnow x ourjurisprudencehasonlyeverdiscussed_Apprendi_!ithasnever N discussedRing.Thus,itisthisCourtsresponsibilityto $t explainFloridassentencingschemethroughthelensofRingand J notthroughthelensof_Apprendi_.Orderat11.#xXX:#)*+,-./0 EGMSY_ekqAutoList261.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.!"#$%&'( EGMSY_ekqAutoList271.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.KLMNOPQR EGMSY_ekqAutoList281.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.  EGMSY_ekqAutoList301.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. EGMSY_ekqAutoList311.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.      EGMSY_ekqAutoList321.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. EGMSY_ekqAutoList331.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.  ($USUS.,xXXXԀ  4    _:XXxAlthoughFloridalawrequiresthejudgetofindthat  sufficientaggravatingcircumstancesexisttoformthebasisfor  adeathsentence,Fla.Stat.921.141(3),itonlyasksthejury x tosaywhethersufficientaggravatingcircumstancesexistto N  recommendadeathsentence.Fla.Stat.sec.921.141(2).As $t Justice_Pariente_Ԁobservedinherconcurringopinionin_Bottoson_ J v.Moore,OrderGrantingStayofExecutionandSettingOral   Argument,CaseNo.SC021455,(July8,2002), Inshort,whatis   ofconcernaboutFloridasdeathpenaltyschemeinlightofRing |  isthatourstatuteappearstoreversethetraditionalrolesof R   thejudgeandjuryinsentencing.Orderat16.#xXX:#  ($USUS.,xXXXԀ  5    _:XXxChapmanv.California,386U.S.18(1967).#xXX:#abcdefgh EGMSY_ekqAutoList341.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. EGMSY_ekqAutoList351.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. EGMSY_ekqAutoList361.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. EGMSY_ekqAutoList371.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.  ($USUS.,xXXXԀ  6    _:XXxThegrandjuryclauseoftheFifthAmendmenthasnotbeenheld  toapplytotheStates._Apprendi_,530U.S.at477,n.3.#xXX:# EGMSY_ekqAutoList381.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. EGMSY_ekqAutoList391.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. EGMSY_ekqAutoList401.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. EGMSY_ekqAutoList411.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. EGMSY_ekqAutoList421.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. EGMSY_ekqAutoList431.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. EGMSY_ekqAutoList441.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. EGMSY_ekqAutoList451.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. EGMSY_ekqAutoList461.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. EGMSY_ekqAutoList471.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.yz{|}~ EGMSY_ekqAutoList481.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.qrstuvwx EGMSY_ekqAutoList491.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.ijklmnop EGMSY_ekqAutoList501.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.IJKLMNOP EGMSY_ekqAutoList511.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. !USUS.,  _TRX3'LetterX3' Letter3'LetterX3'LetterT XXXX8xXXdd8  @ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFFLORIDA  @!CASENO.SC01____  x ?'4pdE41p?  2 @!MICHAELT.RIVERA,  = 0p x (#X0@*  Petitioner,    E.` hp x (#XE0p x (#X0@tt)v. }  E.` hp x (#XE0p x (#X0@!MICHAELW.MOORE, E  @` ` Secretary,FloridaDepartmentofCorrections, )y  E.` hp x (#XE0p x (#X0@*  Respondent.  A E.` hp x (#XE?'4pdE4p?   0p x (#X0@ PETITIONFORWRITOFHABEASCORPUS  f E.` hp x (#XE?'4pdE4p?   p    `     h   MARTINJ._MCCLAIN_     `     h   SpecialAssistant_CCRC_     `     h   FloridaBarNo.0754773      `     h   SUZANNEMYERS O "    `     h   Assistant_CCRC_ 3!#    `     h   FloridaBarNo.0150177 "g$    `     h   OFFICEOFTHECAPITAL #/&    `     h   COLLATERALREGIONALCOUNSEL $ '    `     h   101_N.E._Ԁ3RDAVE.,SUITE400 % (    `     h   Ft.Lauderdale,FL33301 &!)    `     h   (954)7131284 o'"*    `     h   COUNSELFORPETITIONER  7)$,   *A&. 0p x (#X0  E.` hp x (#XE   0p x (#X0  E.` hp x (#XE 0p x (#X0@$ INTRODUCTION   E.` hp x (#XE  Thispetitionforhabeascorpusreliefisbeingfiledin x ordertoaddresssubstantialclaimsoferrorunderthefourth, $t fifth,sixth,eighthandfourteenthamendmentstotheUnited   StatesConstitution,claimsdemonstratingthatMr.Riverawas |  deprivedoftheeffectiveassistanceofcounselondirectappeal ( x  andthattheproceedingsthatresultedinhisconvictions,death $  sentenceandothersentences,aswellasthe_affirmance_Ԁofthose   convictionsandsentences,violatedfundamentalconstitutional ,|  guarantees.ThispetitionchallengesMr.Riveras1987trialand ( sentencing.Citationstothedirectappealrecordshallbecited  as_(R_.pagenumber).Citationstothe_postconviction_Ԁrecordon 0 appealshallbecitedas(PCR.Pagenumber).Allother , citationsshallbeselfexplanatory.   0p x (#X0@$JURISDICTION  4 E.` hp x (#XE  Awritofhabeascorpusisanoriginalproceedinginthis L CourtgovernedbyFla.R.App.P.9.100.ThisCourthasoriginal   jurisdictionunderFla.R.App.P.9.030(a)(3)andArticleV, T!" 3(b)(9),Fla.Const.TheConstitutionoftheStateofFlorida #P$ guaranteesthat"[_t]he_Ԁwritofhabeascorpusshallbegrantable $& ofright,freelyandwithoutcost."Art.I,'13,Fla.Const. X&!(   (T#* 0p x (#X0G0@ REQUESTFORORALARGUMENT   E.` hp x (#XE  Mr.Riverarequestsoralargumentonthispetition. x 0p x (#X0@! PROCEDURALHISTORY  $t E.` hp x (#XE  Mr.RiverawaschargedbyindictmentdatedAugust6,1986,  < withfirstdegreemurder.Mr.Riverawasadjudicatedguiltyon   April16,1987,andonApril17,1987,thejuryrecommendeda D   deathsentence_(R_.2296,2307).OnMay1,1987,thetrialcourt @  imposedasentenceofdeath_(R_.230813).Ondirectappeal,this   CourtaffirmedMr.Riverasconvictionandsentencebutvacated H  thefindingofoneaggravatingcircumstance,i.e.thatthe D offensewascommittedinacold,calculatedandpremeditated  manner.Riverav.State,561So.2d536(Fla.1990). L   Mr.RiverafiledamotionunderFla.R._Crim_.P.3.850on H October31,1991andsubsequentlyfiledtwoamendedRule3.850  motions.Thecircuitcourtconductedanevidentiaryhearingon P limitedclaims,andsummarilydeniedtheremainderoftheclaims L (PCR.19099).Onappeal,thisCourtremandedforan   evidentiaryhearingregardingMr.Riverasclaimofineffective T!" assistanceofcounselatthepenaltyphaseofhistrial.Rivera #P$ v.State,717So2d477(Fla.1998). $&   Onremand,thecircuitcourtconductedanevidentiary X&!( hearingin1999andsubsequentlydeniedrelief.Mr.Rivera (T#* timelyfiledanappealwhichiscurrentlypendingbeforethis )%, Court. \+&. 0p x (#X0@" CLAIMSFORRELIEF   @HH' CLAIMI  x #XxXXX#:XXXXx   MR.RIVERASDEATHSENTENCEOFDEATHSTANDS @ INVIOLATIONOFRINGV.ARIZONAANDTHESIXTH $ t FOURTEENTHAMENDMENTSTOTHEUNITEDSTATES  X _CONSTITUION_.  <  Q! q! c!'pXX' A.0  FactualBackdrop.   (#(#   OnAugust6,1986,thegrandjuryfor_Broward_ԀCounty, n  Florida,returnedanindictmentchargingthatMichaelT.Rivera: j  ` didthenandthereunlawfullyandfeloniouslyandfrom   apremeditateddesigntoeffectthedeathofahuman   being,_STACI_ԀLYNN_JAZVAC_,didkillandmurderthesaid r _STACI_ԀLYNN_JAZVAC_,byasphyxiation,againsttheformof H thestatuteinsuchcasepursuanttoSection782.04of n theFloridaStatutes,madeandprovidedtotheevil D exampleofallothersinthelikecaseoffending,and  againstthepeaceanddignityoftheStateofFlorida.  0   (# (# ` $_(R_.2164). L ! !  TheindictmentdidnotindicatewhethertheStatewouldseek H thedeathpenaltyoruponwhatfactualbasis.Althoughthe  indictmentonlychargedpremeditatedmurder,theStatepresented P evidenceofasexualbatteryand_kidnapping_.Thejurywas L  instructedonpremeditatedandfelonymurder#XxXX:X2!#:XXXXxԀXXX:X_(R_.187173).The !" Judgeinstructedthejuryontheelementsnecessarytoprove T#$ kidnapingandsexualbattery_(R_.187375).#:XXXX{)#XxXX:XԀ#:XXXXx*#OnApril16,1987, %P & thejuryreturnedaverdictfindingMr.Riveraguiltyoffirst &4"( degreemurderaschargedintheindictment_(R_.1899).XxXX:X (#*   #:XXXXx+#Beforesendingthejuryout,thetrialcourthadinstructed <*%, thejuryaboutthepossiblepenalties,butthentoldthejuryto +8'. disregardthosepenalties:  ` Iwillnowinformyouofthemaximumandminimum \ possiblepenaltiesinthiscase.Thepenalties, 2 however,arefortheCourttodecide.Youarenot X responsibleforthepenaltiesinanywaybecauseof . yourverdict.Thepossiblepenaltiesofthiscaseare   tobedisregardedbyyouasyoudiscussyourverdict.   Yourdutyistodiscussonlythequestionofwhether `  theStatehasprovedtheguiltofthedefendantin 6   accordancewiththeseinstructions.Themaximum  \  possiblepenaltyforthecrimeoffirstdegreemurder  2  asisdeath.Theminimumpenaltyforthecrimeof   murderinthefirstdegreeislifeimprisonmentwitha   mandatory25yearswithoutthepossibilityforparole. d  ` ,(R.1885). `  XxXX:X  #:XXXXx0#ThepenaltyphasebeganonApril17,1987.Followingthe   presentationofevidenceandargumentsbycounsel,thejudge h instructedthejury.InaccordancewithFloridalaw,thejudge d toldthejurors:  `  Ladiesandgentlemenofthejury,itisnowyour l dutytoadvisetheCourtastowhatpunishmentshould B beimposeduponthedefendantforthiscrimeofmurder h inthefirstdegree. >  Asyouhavebeentold, thefinaldecisionasto  whatpunishmentshallbeimposedistheresponsibility  oftheJudge ;however,itisyourdutytofollowthe   lawthatwillnowbegivenyoubytheCourtandrender p ! totheCourtanadvisorysentencebaseduponyour F!" determinationastowhethersufficientaggravating "l# circumstancesexisttojustifytheimpositionofthe "B$ deathpenaltyandwhethersufficientmitigating #% circumstancesexisttooutweighanyaggravating $& circumstancesfoundtoexist. t% '  Youradvisorysentenceshouldbebaseduponthe J&!( evidencethatyouveheardwhiletryingtheguiltor  'p") innocenceofthedefendantandontheevidencethathas 'F#* beenpresentedtoyouintheseproceedings. ($+ ` _2_(R_.213233)(emphasisadded).Thejudgethenlistedfour x*%- aggravatingcircumstancesandfivemitigatingcircumstances_(R_. $,t'/ 213334).Astotheproofoftheaggravatingfactors,thejudge  charged: \ `  Eachaggravatingcircumstancemustbeestablished X beyondareasonabledoubtbeforeitmaybeconsidered . byyouinarrivingatyourdecision.Ifoneormore   aggravatingcircumstancesareestablished,youshould   consideralltheevidencetendingtoestablishoneor `  moremitigatingcircumstancesandgivethatevidence 6   suchweightasyoufeelitshouldreceiveinreaching  \  yourconclusionastothesentencethatshouldbe  2  imposed.   ` 8_(R_.2135).Thejuryreturnedaverdictof120infavorofdeath d  _(R_.2139). `   (03/ /  OnMay1,1987,thetrialcourtorallyandinwriting   enteredhisSentencingOrdertojustifythedeathsentence_(R_. h 214654;230913).Thejudgesordermadefactualdeterminations d astoeachoftheaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstancesat  issue.Anexampleofthisfollows:XxXX:X l #:XXXXx>#` XXX:XThird921.141(5)(h)Thecapitalfelonywasespecially h heinous,atrociousandcruel.Dr.Wrighttestified > thatthecauseofdeathwasasphyxiation.Hetestified  thattherewasabruiseonherforeheadcausedwhile  shewasalive.Awitnesstestifiedduringthetrial p  thatyoutoldhimshestartedtoscreamandresisted F ! youanditgotoutofhandandyouchokedhertodeath. !l" Ithasbeenpreviouslybeenheldthatthefearand !B# emotionalstrainprecedingavictimsdeathmaybe "$ consideredascontributingtotheheinousnatureofthe #% capitalfelony.SeeAdamsv.State412So.2d850. t$& ` >_(R_.2310).#:XXXX ?#XXX:X p   &p!(  #:XXXXB#B. 0  Floridascapitalsentencingschemeisunconstitutional '#* underRingv.Arizona. ($+(#(# QC 9(8 0   Ringv.Arizona,536U.S.____,(2002),foundtheArizona j*%- capitalsentencingschemeunconstitutionalbecauseitmadea ,f'/ G0 G G  deathsentencecontingentuponthefindingofthepresenceof  additionalfacts,butassignedresponsibilityforfindingthose \ factstothejudgeinviolationoftheSixthAmendmentrighttoa X jurytrial.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtbasedthisholding   andanalysisinRingonitsearlierdecisionin_Apprendi_Ԁv.New `  Jersey,530U.S.466(2000).TheretheSupremeCourthadheld  \  that [_i]t_Ԁisunconstitutionalforalegislaturetoremovefrom   thejurytheassessmentoffactsthatincreasetheprescribed d  rangeofpenaltiestowhichacriminaldefendantisexposed.Id. `  at490(quotingJonesv.UnitedStates,526U.S.227,252253   (1999)(Stevens,J.,concurring)).Accordingly,capital h sentencingschemessuchasthoseinFloridaandArizona,violate d thenoticeandjurytrialrightscontainedintheSixthand  FourteenthAmendments.Suchcapitalsentencingschemesdonot l provideforthejurytorenderaverdictwithrespecttothe h  fact[that]isanelementoftheaggravatedcrimepunishableby  death.Ring,slipop.at19(quoting_Apprendi_,530U.S.at501 p  (Thomas.,J.,concurring)). !l"  9:;<=>?@@(0 8 9/ /  Applyingthe_Apprendi_testinRing,theCourtsaid [_t]he_ "$ _dispositive_Ԁquestion....isnotoneofformbutofeffect. t$& Ring,slipop.at16(quoting_Apprendi_,530U.S.at494).The  &p!(  questionisnotwhetherdeathisanauthorizedpunishmentin '#* firstdegreemurdercases,   1      ׀butwhetherthe factsincreasing   punishmentbeyondthemaximumauthorizedbyaguiltyverdict \ standingalone,Ring,slipop.at19,arefoundbythejudgeor X jury. Ifastatemakesanincreaseinadefendantsauthorized   punishmentcontingentonthefindingofafact,thatfact...must `  befoundbyajurybeyondareasonabledoubt.Ring,slipop.at  \  16. Allthefactswhichmustexistinordertosubjectthe   defendanttoalegallyprescribedpunishmentmustbefoundbythe d  jury.Ibid.(quoting_Apprendi_,530U.S.at499(Scalia,J., `  concurring)).    123456788(009:;<=>?@@  TheCourtinRingheldthatArizonassentencingstatute h couldnotsurvive_Apprendi_because [a]defendantconvictedof d firstdegreemurderinArizonacannotreceiveadeathsentence  unlessajudgemakesthefactualdeterminationthatastatutory l aggravatingfactorexists.Withoutthatcriticalfinding,the h maximumsentencetowhichthedefendantisexposedislife  imprisonment,andnotthedeathpenalty.Ring,slipop.at9 p  (internalquotationmarksandcitationsomitted).Insoholding, !l" theCourtoverruledWaltonv.Arizona,497U.S.639(1990), to "$ theextentthatitallowsasentencingjudgesittingwithouta  jury,tofindanaggravatingcircumstancenecessaryfor \ impositionofthedeathpenalty.Ring,slipop.at22. X  C. 0  ApplyingRingtoFloridassentencingscheme (#(#    ThisCourtpreviouslyheldthat [_b]ecause_Ԁ_Apprendi_didnot |  overruleWalton,thebasicschemeinFloridaisnotoverruled ( x  either.Millsv.Moore,786So.2d532,537(Fla.2001). $  However,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasnowspokenand   announcedinRingthatWaltonwasoverruled.Sincethe ,|  underlyingbasisforWaltonwastherulingin_Hildwin_Ԁv.Florida, ( 490U.S.638(1989)(per_curiam_),whichupheldthecapital  sentencingschemeinFlorida ongroundsthattheSixth 0 Amendmentdoesnotrequirethatthespecificfindingsauthorizing , impositionofthesentenceofdeathbemadebythejury,Ring,  slipop.at11(quotingWalton,497U.S.at648,inturnquoting 4 _Hildwin_,490U.S.at640641),logically_Hildwin_hasbeen 0 overruledaswell.Certainlyataminimum,Ringunderminesthe   FloridaSupremeCourtsdecisioninMillsbyrecognizing:(a) 8!" that_Apprendi_appliestocapitalsentencingschemes,   2      ׀Ring,slip "4$ op.at2( Capitaldefendants,nolessthannoncapital $& defendants...areentitledtoajurydeterminationofanyfacton <&!( whichthelegislatureconditionsanincreaseintheirmaximum '8#* punishment),Id.at23;(b)thatStatesmaynotavoidtheSixth  Amendmentrequirementsof_Apprendi_bysimply _specif[ying_]death \ orlifeimprisonmentastheonlysentencingoptions,Ring,slip X op.at17;and_(c_)thattherelevantand_dispositive_Ԁquestionis   whetherunderstatelawdeathis authorizedbyaguiltyverdict `  standingalone,Ring,slipop.at19.   3        \   )*+,-./00(00123456788/ /  Floridascapitalsentencingstatute,liketheArizona   statutestruckdowninRing,makesimposingthedeathpenalty d  contingentonthefactualfindingsofajudge,notthejury. `  Section775.082oftheFloridaStatutesprovidesthataperson   convictedoffirstdegreemurdermustbesentencedtolifein h prison unlesstheproceedingsheldtodeterminesentence d accordingtotheproceduresetfortinSec.921.141resultin  findingbythecourtthatsuchpersonshallbepunishedbydeath, l andinthelattereventsuchpersonshallbepunishedbydeath. h Fornearly30years,thisCourthasheldthatsections775.082  and921.141donotallowimposingadeathsentenceuponajurys p  verdictofguilt,butonlyuponafindingofsufficient !l" aggravatingcircumstances.Dixonv.State,283So.2d1,7 "$ (Fla.1973)( questionofpunishmentisreservedforapost t$& convictionhearing).   !"#$%&'(((00)*+,-./00  The explicitlycrossreference[d]...statutoryprovision \ requiringthefindingofanaggravatingcircumstancebefore X impositionofthedeathpenalty,Ring,slipop.at18,requires   thejudge!afterthejuryhasbeendischargedand `   [_n]otwithstanding_Ԁtherecommendationofamajorityofthejury  \  tomaketwofactualdeterminations.Fla.Stat.sec.921.141(3).   Section921.141(3)providesthat ifthecourtimposesa d  sentenceofdeath,itshallsetforthinwritingitsfindings `  uponwhichthesentenceofdeathisbasedastothefacts.Ibid.   First,thejudgemustfindthat sufficientaggravating h circumstancesexisttojustifyimpositionofthedeathpenalty. d Ibid.Second,thejudgemustfindinwritingthat thereare  insufficientmitigatingcircumstancestooutweightheaggravating l circumstances.Ibid. Ifthecourtdoesnotmakethefindings h requiringthedeathsentence,thecourtshallimposesentenceof  lifeimprisonmentinaccordancewithsec.775.082.Ibid. p    BecauseFloridasdeathpenaltystatutemakesimposinga !l" deathsentencecontingentuponfindingsof sufficient "$ aggravatingcircumstances,and insufficientmitigating t$& circumstances,andgivessoleresponsibilityforthosefindings  &p!( tothejudge,itviolatestheSixthAmendment,asexplainedin '#* Ringv.Arizona. x)$,  KLMNOPQRR(00!"#$%&'((/ / D. 0  TheRoleoftheJuryinFloridasCapitalSentencingScheme $+t&. NeitherSatisfiestheSixthAmendmentnorRendersHarmless ,X'/ theFailuretoSatisfy_Apprendi_andRing. (#(#   FloridasdeathpenaltystatutediffersfromArizonainthat j itprovidesforthejurytohearevidenceand renderanadvisory f sentencetothecourt.Fla.Stat.sec.921.141(2).AFlorida   jurysroleinthecapitalsentencingprocessisinsignificant n  under_Apprendi_andRing,however.First,whetheronelooksto  j  theplainmeaningofFloridasdeathpenaltystatute,orthis   Courtscasesinterpretingit, undersection921.141,thejurys r  advisoryrecommendationisnotsupportedbyfindingsoffact, n  Combsv.State,525So.2d853,859(Fla.1988)(Shaw,J.  concurring),whichisthecentralrequirementofRing. v    (00KLMNOPQRR/ /  ThisCourthasrejectedtheideathatadefendantconvicted "r offirstdegreemurderhastheright tohavetheexistenceand  validityofaggravatingcircumstancesdeterminedastheywere z placedbeforethisjury._Engle_Ԁv.State,438So.2d803,813 &v (Fla.1983),explainedinDavisv.State,703So.2d1055,1061 " (Fla.1997).Thestatutespecificallyrequiresthejudgeto set ~  forth...findingsuponwhichthesentenceofdeathisbasedasto *!z" thefacts,butasksthejurygenerallyto renderanadvisory "&$ sentence...baseduponthefollowingmattersreferringtothe $& sufficiencyoftheaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstances. .&~!( Fla.Stat.921.141(2)and(3).BecauseFloridalawdoesnot '*#* requirethatanynumberjurorsagreethattheStatehasproven )$, theexistenceofagivenaggravatingcircumstancebeforeitmay 2+&. bedeemed found,itisimpossibletosaythat thejuryfound  proofbeyondareasonabledoubtofaparticularaggravating \ circumstance,letalone"sufficientaggravatingcircumstances." X Thus, thesentencingorderisastatutorilyrequiredpersonal   evaluationbythetrialjudgeoftheaggravatingandmitigating `  factorsthatformsthebasisofasentenceoflifeordeath.  \  Mortonv.State,789So.2d324,333(Fla.2001),quotingPatton   v.State,784So.2d380(Fla.2000). d    AstheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsaidinWalton, [a] `  Floridatrialcourtnomorehastheassistanceofajurys   findingsoffactwithrespecttosentencingissuesthandoesa h trialjudgeinArizona.Walton,497U.S.at648.ThisCourt d hasmadethepointevenmorestronglybyrepeatedlyemphasizing  thatthetrialjudgesfindingsmustbemadeindependentlyofthe l jurysrecommendation.SeeGrossmanv.State,525So.2d833, h 840(Fla.1988).Becausethejudgemustdeterminethat   sufficientaggravatingcircumstancesexist notwithstandingthe p  recommendationofamajorityofthejury,Fla.Stat. !l" 921.141(3),hemayconsiderandrelyonevidencenotsubmittedto "$ thejury.Porterv.State,400So.2d5(Fla.1981);Davisv. t$& State,7032d1055,1061(Fla.1997).Thejudgealsois  &p!( permittedtoconsiderandrelyuponaggravatingcircumstances '#* thatwerenotconsideredbythejury.Davis,703So.2dat1061, x)$, citingHoffmanv.State,474So.2d1178(Fla.1985)(courts $+t&. findingof heinous,atrocious,orcruelaggravating  circumstanceproperthoughjurywasnotinstructedonit); \ _Fitzpatrick_Ԁv.State,437So.2d1072,1078(Fla.1983)(finding X thattheaggravatingcircumstanceofapreviousconvictionofa   violentfelonywaspropereventhoughjurywasnotinstructedto `  considerit;_Engle_,supra,438So.2dat813.  \    BecauseinFlorida,thejurysroleismerelyadvisoryand   containsnofindingsuponwhichtojudgetheproportionalityof d  thesentence,thisCourthasrecognizedthatitsreviewofa `  deathsentenceisbasedanddependentonthejudgeswritten   findings.Morton,789So.2dat333( Thesentencingorderis h thefoundationforthisCourtsproportionalityreview,whichmay d ultimatelydetermineifapersonlivesordies);Grossman,525  So.2dat839;Dixon,283So.2dat8.Thus,thejurys l recommendationdoesnotinformthisCourtsproportionality h review.    Although [Floridas]enumeratedaggravatingfactorsoperate p  asthefunctionalequivalentofanelementofagreater !l" offense,andthereforemustbefoundbyajurylikeanyother "$ elementofanoffense,Ring,slipop.at23(quoting_Apprendi_, t$& 530U.S.at494),Floridalawdoesnotrequirethejurytoreach  &p!( averdictonanyofthefactualdeterminationsrequiredbeforea '#* deathsentencecouldbeimposed.Section921.141(2)doesnot x)$, callforajuryverdict,butratheran advisorysentence.This $+t&. Courthasmadeitclearthat thejuryssentencing  recommendationinacapitalcaseisonlyadvisory.Thetrial \ courtistoconductitsownweighingoftheaggravatingand X mitigatingcircumstances....Combs,525So.2dat858,quoting   _Spaziano_Ԁv.Florida,468U.S.447,451. Thetrialjudge...is `  notboundbythejurysrecommendation,andisgivenfinal  \  authoritytodeterminetheappropriatesentence._Engle_,438So.   2dat813.Itisreversibleerrorforatrialjudgetoconsider d  herselfboundtofollowajurysrecommendationandthus not `  makeanindependentrulingwhetherthedeathsentenceshouldbe   imposed.Rossv.State,386So.2d1191,1198(Fla.1980). h Floridalawonlyrequiresthatthejudgeconsider the d recommendationofamajorityofthejury.Fla.Stat.  921.141(3). l   Incontrasttothemajorityvoteprovisiongoverningthe h juryscapitalsentencingrecommendation,Floridalawtreats  guiltverdictsdifferently. Noverdictmayberenderedunless p  allofthetrialjurorsconcurinit.Fla.R._Crim_.P.3.440. !l" AXXX:XFloridacourtshaveheldthatunanimityisrequiredattheguilt "$ phaseofacapitalcase.Williamsv.State,438So.2d781,784 t$& (Fla.1983).See_Flanning_Ԁv.State,597So.2d864,866(Fla.3rd  &p!( DCA1992)("Itisthereforesettledthat[_i]n_Ԁthisstate,the '#* verdictofthejurymustbeunanimousandthatanyinterference x)$, withthisrightdeniedthedefendantafairtrial.Jonesv. $+t&. State,92So.2d261(Fla.1956)").Therighttoaunanimousjury  verdictmustextendtoeachnecessaryelementofthecharged \ crime.Astoanelementoftheoffense,thisCourthas X recognizedthatajudgemaynotmakefactfinding"onmatters   associatedwiththecriminalepisode"that"wouldbeaninvasion `  ofthejuryshistoricalfunction".Statev._Overfelt_,457So.2d  \  1385,1387(Fla.1984).#:XXXAXm#ԀNeitherthesentencingstatute,caselaw   fromthisCourt,northejuryinstructionsinMr.Riverascase d  requiredthatthejurorsparticipatinginhispenaltyphaseto `  concurinfindingwhetheranyparticularaggravating   circumstanceshadbeenproved,or [_w]hether_Ԁsufficient h aggravatingcircumstances_exist[ed_],or [_w]hether_Ԁsufficient d aggravatingcircumstances_exist[ed_]which_outweigh[ed_]the  mitigatingcircumstances.Fla.Stat.921.141(2). l       (0 0     BecauseFloridalawdoesnotrequirethattwelvejurors h agreethattheStatehasprovenanaggravatingcircumstance  beyondareasonabledoubt,ortoagreeonthesameaggravating p  circumstancesbeyondareasonabledoubt,ortoagreeonthesame !l" aggravatingcircumstanceswhenadvisingthat sufficient "$ aggravatingcircumstancesexisttowarrantadeathsentence, t$& thereisnowaytosaythat thejuryrenderedaverdictasto  &p!( anaggravatingcircumstanceorthesufficiencyofthem.As '#* JusticeShawobservedinCombs,Floridalawleavesthesesmatters x)$, tospeculation.Combs,525So.2dat859(Shaw,J.,concurring). $+t&.   Moreover,itwouldbeimpermissibleandunconstitutionalto  retroactivelyattachgreatersignificancetothejurysadvisory \ sentencethanthejurywastoldatthetime.Theadvisorycannot X nowbeusedasthebasisforthefactfindingsrequiredfora   deathsentencebecausethestatutesrequiresonlyamajorityvote `  ofthejuryinsupportofthatadvisorysentence.Seeid.  \  (recommendationofamajorityofthejury).InHarrisv.   UnitedStates2002WL1357277,No.0010666(U.S.June24,2002), d  decidedonthesamedayasRing,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourt `  heldthatunderthe_Apprendi_test, thosefactssettingtheouter   limitsofasentence,andofthejudicialpowertoimposeit,are h theelementsofthecrimeforthepurposesoftheconstitutional d analysis.Id.at14.InRing,theSupremeCourtheldthatthe  aggravatingfactorsenumeratedunderArizonalawoperatedas the l functionalequivalentofanelementofagreateroffenseand h thushadtobefoundbyajury.2002WL1357257at16.Basedon  thereasoningin_Apprendi_,Jones,andRing,aggravatingfactors p  areequivalenttoelementsofthecapitalcrimeitselfandmust !l" betreatedassuch. "$   Oneoftheelementsthathadtobeestablishedinorderto t$& authorizeadeathsentenceforMr.Rivera,deathwasthepresence  &p!(  of sufficientaggravatingcircumstancestowarrantthe '#* impositionofadeathsentence.Fla.Stat.921.141(3)._   4      _Ԁ   However,thejurywasnotinstructedonanystandardbywhichto \ makethisessentialdetermination.AsJusticeScaliaexplained X inhisopinionforaunanimousSupremeCourtinSullivanv.   Louisiana,508US.275(1993),suchanerrorcanneverbe `  harmless. [_T]he_ԀjuryverdictrequiredbytheSixthAmendmentis  \  ajuryverdictofguiltybeyondareasonabledoubt.Sullivan,   508U.S.at278.Wherethejuryhasnotbeeninstructedonthe d  reasonabledoubtstandard: `  ` therehasbeennojuryverdictwithinthemeaningof   theSixthAmendment,[and]theentirepremiseof  Chapman[    5      ]reviewissimplyabsent.Therebeingnojury h verdictofguiltybeyondareasonabledoubt,the > questionwhetherthesameverdictofguiltybeyonda d reasonabledoubtwouldberenderedabsentthe : constitutionalerrorisutterlymeaningless.Thereis  noobject,sotospeak,uponwhichharmlesserror  scrutinycanoperate. l ` ]Sullivan,508U.S.at280.Inacasesuchasthis,wherethe h errorisnotrequiringajuryverdictontheessentialelements  ofacapitalmurder,butdelegatingthatresponsibilitytoa p  court, nomatterhowinescapablethefindingstosupportthe  verdictmightbe,foracourt tohypothesizeaguiltyverdict \ thatwasneverrendered...wouldviolatethejurytrialright. X Id.,508U.S.at279.Thereviewwouldperpetuatetheerror,not   cureit. `   abcdefghh(0 0      / /  Permittinganysuchfindingsoftheelementsofacapital  \  crimebyameresimplemajorityisunconstitutionalunderthe   SixthandFourteenthAmendments.Inthesamewaythatthe d  Constitutionguaranteesalevelofcertaintybeforeajurycan `  convictadefendant,italsoconstrainsthenumberofjurorswho   canrenderaguiltyverdict.See_Apodaca_Ԁv.Oregon,406U.S.404 h (1972)(theSixthandFourteenthAmendmentsrequiresthata d criminalverdictmustbesupportedbyatleasta substantial  majorityofthejurors).Andthestandardsforimposingadeath l sentencemaybeevenmoreexactingthanthe_Apodaca_standard h (whichwasnotadeathcase)buttheycannotconstitutionally  beless.Clearly,amerenumericalmajority,whichisallthat p  isrequiredunderSection921.141(3)forthejurysadvisory !l" sentence,wouldnotsatisfythe substantialmajority "$ requirementof_Apodaca_.SeeJohnsonv.Louisiana,406U.S.356, t$& 366(1972)(Blackmun,J.,concurring)(astatestatuteauthorizing  &p!( a75verdictwouldviolateDueProcessClauseofFourteenth '#* Amendment). x)$,   TheStatewasnotrequiredtoconvincethejurythatdeath $+t&. wasapropersentencebeyondareasonabledoubt.Thejuryin  Mr.Riverascasewasnotrequiredtomakefindingsbeyonda \ reasonabledoubtasrequiredbytheSixthAmendment. IfaState X makesanincreaseinadefendantsauthorizedpunishment   contingentonthefindingofafact,thatfact,nomatterhowthe `  Statelabelsit,mustbefoundbyajurybeyondareasonable  \  doubt.Ring,slipop.at16.Floridalawmakesadeath   sentencecontingentnotupontheexistenceofanyindividual d  aggravatingcircumstance,butonafinding [_t]hat_Ԁsufficient `  aggravatingcircumstancesexist.Fla.Stat.921.141(3).    (00abcdefghh  InlightoftheplainlanguageofFloridasdeathpenalty h statute,therulesofcriminalprocedureand30yearsofthis d Courtsdeathpenaltyjurisprudence,itisclearthatthelimited  roleofthejuryinFloridascapitalsentencingschemefailsto l satisfytherequirementsoftheSixthAmendmentthatwereset h forthinRingv.Arizona.EvenifthisCourtweretoredefine  thejurysroleunderFloridalaw,itwouldnotcuretheerror p  leadingtoMr.Riverasdeathsentence.Mr.Riverasjurywas !l" repeatedlytoldthatitsdecisionwasmerely advisory_(R_.148, "$ 1921,2132)andthat thefinaldecisionastowhatpunishment t$& shallbeimposedistheresponsibilityoftheJudge_(R_.1921,  &p!( 2132).Thejurywastoldthatitsjobwasto rendertothe '#* Courtanadvisorysentence(Id.). x)$,  (00  AstheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldinCaldwellv. $+t&. Mississippi,472U.S.320,32829(1985):  `  [I]tisconstitutionallyimpermissibletoresta \ deathsentenceonadeterminationmadebyasentencer 2 whohasbeenledtobelievethattheresponsibilityfor X determiningtheappropriatenessofthedefendants . deathrestselsewhere.   Ѐ` WerethisCourttonowconcludethatMr.Riverasdeathsentence `  restsonfindingsmadebythejuryaftertheyhadbeentoldat  \  thetimeinconformitywiththethencontrollingFloridalawthat   adeathsentencewouldnotrestupontheirrecommendation,it d  wouldcreatearetroactiveviolationofCaldwell. `    ThedecisioninCaldwellembodiedtheprinciplestatedin   Justice_Breyer_sconcurringopinioninRing: theEighth h Amendmentrequiresthatindividualjurorstomake,andtotake d responsibility,for,adecisiontosentenceapersontodeath.  Ring,slipop.at6(_Breyer_,J.).Certainly,Mr.Riverasjury l wasnotadvisedthatitwasthefinderoffactinregardtoMr. h Riverassentenceofdeath.   B(80/ / E.0  Mr.RiverasDeathSentenceisInvalidBecausetheElements p  oftheOffenseNecessarytoEstablishCapitalMurderWere T ! NotChargedintheIndictment. 8!"(#(#   InJonesv.UnitedStates,526U.S.227(1999),theUnited "B$ StatesSupremeCourtheldthat undertheDueProcessClauseof $& theFifthAmendmentandthenoticeandjuryguaranteesofthe J&!( SixthAmendment,anyfact(otherthanpriorconviction)that 'F#* increasesthemaximumpenaltyforacrimemustbechargedinthe )$, indictment,submittedtoajury,andprovenbeyondareasonable N+&. doubt.Jones,at243,n.6.TheSupremeCourtheldin_Apprendi_  v.NewJersey,530U.S.466(1999),thattheFourteenthAmendment \ affordscitizensthesameprotectionswhentheyareprosecuted X understatelaw._Apprendi_,530U.S.at475476._   6      _ԀRingv.   Arizona,536U.S._____,(2002)heldthatadeathpenalty `  statutes aggravatingfactorsoperateasthefunctional  \  equivalentofanelementoragreateroffense.Ring,slipop.   at23(quoting_Apprendi_,530U.S.at494,n.19).InJones,the d  SupremeCourtnotedthat [_m]uch_Ԁturnsonthedeterminationthat `  afactisanelementofanoffense,ratherthanasentencing   consideration,insignificantpartbecause elementsmustbe h chargedintheindictment.Jones,526U.S.at232l. d   OnJune28,2002,aftertheSupremeCourtsdecisionin  Ring,thedeathsentenceimposedinUnitedStatesv.Allen,247 l F.3d741(8thCir.2001)wasvacatedwhentheSupremeCourt h grantedawritofcertiorari,vacatedthejudgmentoftheEighth  Circuitupholdingthedeathsentence,andremandedthecasefor p  reconsiderationinlightofRingsdeterminationthataggravating !l" factorsthatareprerequisitesofadeathsentencemustbe "$ treatedaselementsoftheoffense.Allenv.UnitedStates,No. t$& 017310,2002U.S.LEXIS4893(June28,2002).Thequestion  &p!( presentedtotheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtthepetitionfor '#* certiorarireviewinAllenwas:8 @8  p   ` Whetheraggravatingfactorsrequiredforasentenceof \ deathundertheFederalDeathPenaltyActof1994,18 2 U.S.C.Section3591etseq.,areelementsofacapital X crimeandthusmustbeallegedintheindictmentin . ordertocomplywithDueProcessandGrandJuryclauses   oftheFifthAmendment.   ` * (08BTheEighthCircuithadpreviouslyrejectedAllensargument 6   becauseinitsview,aggravatingfactorsarenotelementsof  2  federalcapitalmurderbutrather sentencingprotectionsthat   shieldadefendantfromautomaticallyreceivingthestatutorily :  authorizeddeathsentence.UnitedStatesv.Allen,247F.3dat 6 763.   (00  LiketheFifthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution, > ArticleI,section15oftheFloridaConstitutionprovidesthat :  Nopersonshallbetriedforacapitalcrimewithoutpresentment  orindictmentbyagrandjury.Like18U.S.C.sections3591and B 3592(c),Floridasdeathpenaltystatutes,Fla.Stat.775.082 > and921.141,makeimposingthedeathpenaltycontingentuponthe  governmentestablishing sufficientaggravatingcircumstancesto F ! justifyingadeathsentence,andthatthemitigating !B# circumstancesareinsufficienttooutweightheaggravating #% circumstance.Fla.Stat.921.141(3). J% '  (00  Floridalawclearlyrequiresevery elementoftheoffense &F") tobeallegedintheinformationortheindictment.InStatev. (#+ Dye,346So.2d538(Fla.1977),thisCourtsaid [_a]n_ N*%- informationmustallegeeachoftheessentialelementsofacrime +J'/ tobevalid.Noessentialelementshouldbelefttoinference.  InStatev.Gray,435So.2d816,818(Fla.1983),thisCourt \ said [_w]here_Ԁanindictmentorinformationwhollyomitstoallege X oneormoreoftheessentialelementsofthecrime,itfailsto   chargeacrimeunderthelawsofthestate.Anindictmentin `  violationofthisrulecannotsupportaconviction.The  \  convictioncanbeattackedatanystage,including byhabeas   corpus.Gray,435So.at818.In_Chicone_Ԁv.State,684So.2d d  736,744(Fla.1996),thisCourtsaid [_a]s_Ԁageneralrule,an `  informationmustallegeeachoftheessentialelementsofacrime   tobevalid. h  (00  The celebratedpurposeofthegrandjury istostand d betweenthegovernmentandthecitizenandprotectindividuals  fromtheabuseofarbitraryprosecution.UnitedStatesv. l _Dionisio_,410U.S.19,33(1973);seealsoWoodv.Georgia,370 h U.S.375,390(1962).TheSupremeCourtexplainedthatfunction  ofthegrandjuryin_Dionisio_: p  ` Properlyfunctioning,thegrandjuryistobethe !l" servantofneithertheGovernmentnorthecourts,but !B# ofthepeople...Assuch,weassumethatitcomestoits "$ taskwithoutbiasorselfinterest.Unlikethe #% prosecutororpoliceman,ithasnoelectiontowinor t$& executiveappointmenttokeep. J% ' ` Id.,410U.S.at35.Theshieldingfunctionofthegrandjuryis &F") uniquelyimportantincapitalcases.SeeCampbellv.Louisiana, (#+ 523U.S.392,399(1998)(recognizingthatthegrandjury actsas N*%- avitalcheckagainstthewrongfulexerciseofpowerbythe +J'/ Statesanditsprosecutorswithrespectto significant  decisionssuchashowmanycountstochargeand...theimportant \ decisiontochargeacapitalcrime.).Atthisjuncture,itis X impossibletoknowwhetherthegrandjuryinthiscasewouldhave   returnedanindictmentallegingthepresenceofaggravating `  factors,sufficientaggravatingcircumstances,andinsufficient  \  mitigatingcircumstancesandthuschargingMr.Riverawitha   crimepunishablebydeath. d   (00  TheSixthAmendmentrequiresthat [_i]n_Ԁallcriminal `  prosecutions,theaccusedshall...beinformedofthenatureand   causeoftheaccusation....UnderFloridalaw,aconvictionon h acapitalchargenotmadebytheindictmentisadenialofdue d processoflaw.Statev.Gray,citingThornhillv.Alabama,310  U.S.88(1984),and_DeJonge_Ԁv.Oregon,299U.S.353(1937). l BecausetheStatedidnotsubmittothegrandjury,andthe h indictmentdidnotstatetheessentialelementsoftheaggravated  crimeofcapitalmurder,Mr.RiverasrightunderArticleI, p  section15oftheFloridaConstitutionandtheSixthAmendmentto !l" thefederalconstitutionwereviolated.Byomittingany "$ referencetotheaggravatingcircumstancethatwouldberelied t$& uponbytheStateinseekingadeathsentence,theindictment  &p!( prejudiciallyhinderedMr.Rivera inthepreparationofa '#* defense,toasentenceofdeath.Fla.R._Crim_.P.3.140(o). x)$, Habeasreliefis_warranted._ $+t&.  E. 0  Mr.RiverasDeathSentencewasImposedinViolationofthe  DueProcessClauseoftheFifthAmendmentandtheJuryTrial  RightGuaranteedbytheSixthAmendmentBecausehewas x RequiredtoProvetheNonExistenceofanElementNecessary \ toMakehimEligiblefortheDeathPenalty.@(#(#   yz{|}~(00  UnderFloridalaw,adeathsentencemaynotbeimposed  J unlessthejudgefindsthefactthat sufficientaggravating   circumstancesexisttojustifyimposingthedeathpenalty.Fla. R   Stat.921.141(3).Becauseimposingadeathsentenceis N  contingentonthisfactbeingfound,andthemaximumsentence   thatcouldbeimposedintheabsenceofthatfindingislifein V  prison,theSixthAmendmentrequiresthattheStatebearthe R burdenofprovingitbeyondareasonabledoubt. Capital  defendants...areentitledtoajurydeterminationofanyfacton Z thelegislatureconditionsanincreaseintheirmaximum V punishment.Ring.,slipop.at2.Nevertheless,Mr.Riveras  jurywas, Shouldyoufindsufficientaggravatingcircumstances ^ doexist,itwillthenbeyourdutytodeterminewhether  Z mitigatingcircumstancesdoexistthatoutweightheaggravating   circumstances._(R_.2134). b!"   TheDueProcessclauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentrequires #^$ theStatetoprovebeyondareasonabledoubteveryfactnecessary $ & toconstituteacrime.Inre_Winship_,397U.S.358(1970).The f&!( existenceofsufficientaggravatingcircumstancesthatoutweigh (b#* themitigatingcircumstancesisanessentialelementofdeath )%, eligiblefirstdegreemurderbecauseitistheanelementthat j+&. distinguishesitfromthecrimeoffirstdegreemurder,forwhich  lifeistheonlypossiblepunishment.Fla.Stat.775.082, \ 921.141.Forthatreason,_Winship_requirestheprosecutionto X provetheexistenceofthatelementbeyondareasonabledoubt.     TheinstructiongivenMr.RiverasjuryviolatedtheDue `  ProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentoftheUnitedStates  \  ConstitutionandtheSixthAmendmentsrighttotrialbyjury   becauseitrelievedtheStateofitsburdentoprovebeyonda d  reasonabledoubttheelementthatsufficientaggravating `  circumstancesexistedthatoutweighmitigatingcircumstances.   Thisinstructionshiftedtheburdenofprooftothedefendantto h provethatthemitigatingcircumstancesoutweighedsufficient d aggravatingcircumstances._Mullaney_Ԁv.Wilbur,421U.S.684,698  (1975). l  qrstuvwxx(00yz{|}~/$ /  In_Mullaney_,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthatMaine h statutoryschemedelineatingthecrimesofmurderand  manslaughterviolatedtheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenth p  Amendment.TheMainelawatissuerequiredadefendantto !l" establish,byapreponderanceoftheevidence,thatheactedin "$ theheatofpassiononsuddenprovocation,inordertoreducea t$& chargeofmurdertomanslaughter.Id.,421U.S.at691692.  &p!( LiketheFloridastatuteatissuehere, thepotentialdifference '#* in[punishment]attendanttoeachconviction....maybeofgreater x)$, importancethanthedifferencebetweenguiltorinnocencefor $+t&. manylessercrimes.Id.421U.S.at698.TheSupremeCourtheld  thatthestatutoryschemeunconstitutionallyrelievedthestate \ ofitsburdentoprovetheelementofintent.Id.421U.S.at X 701702.TheFloridainstructionproducesthesamefatalflaw.    ijklmnopp(0$0$qrstuvwxx  TocomplywiththeEighthAmendmentsrequirementthatthe `  deathpenaltybeappliedonlytotheworseoffenders,Florida  \  adoptedFla.Stat.921.141asameansofdistinguishingbetween   deathpenaltyeligibleandnondeathpenaltyeligiblemurder. d  Statev.Dixon,283So.2d1,10(Fla.1973).Floridachoseto `  distinguishthoseforwhomsufficientaggravatingcircumstances   outweighmitigatingcircumstancefromthoseforwhomsufficient h aggravatingcircumstancesdonotoutweighthemitigating d circumstances.Id.,283So.2dat8.Becausetheformerare  moreculpable,theyaresubjectedtothemostseverepunishment, l death. Bydrawingthedistinctions,whilerefusingtorequire h theprosecutiontoestablishbeyondareasonabledoubtthefact  uponwhichitturns,[Florida]denigratestheinterestsfound p  criticalin_Winship_._Mullaney_,421U.S.at698. !l"  IJKLMNOPP(0$0$ijklmnopp G. 0  TheFailuretoRequiretheJurytoMaketheNecessaryFact "$ FindingsWasStructuralError .#%(#(#   TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasdeterminedthatnotall f% ' constitutionalerrorissubjecttoharmlesserroranalysis.In 'b") doingsotheSupremeCourtsplitconstitutionalerrorintotwo ($+ categories.Thoseerrorsthatmaybereviewedcasebycaseto j*%- determineiftheerrorwasharmlessuponthefactsofthe ,f'/ individualcasehavebeendescribedas"trialerror."Arizonav.  _Fulminante_,499U.S.279,308(1991).AstheSupremeCourthas \ explained: X ` Trialerror"_occur[s_]duringthepresentationofthe   casetothejury,"andisamenabletoharmlesserror   analysisbecauseit"may...bequantitatively `  assessedinthecontextofotherevidencepresentedin 6   ordertodetermine[theeffectithadonthetrial]."  \  ` _Brecht_Ԁv._Abrahamson_,507U.S.619,629(1993).Forthese   errors,anappellatecourtmayevaluatethecourseofthetrial :  thebasisofthecourtrecordtodeterminewhethertheireffect 6 ofthefactfindingprocessattrialwasharmlessbeyonda  reasonabledoubt.Delawarev.Van_Arsdall_,475U.S.673,681 > (1986). :   Thesecondcategoryofconstitutionalerrorhasbeendefined  asincluding"structuraldefectsintheconstitutionofthetrial B mechanism,whichdefyanalysisbyharmlesserrorstandards." > _Fulminante_,499U.S.at309.Structuraldefects,subjectto  automaticreversalhavebeenfoundwheretherehasbeena F ! "completedenialofcounsel,"a"biasedtrialjudge,""racial !B# discriminationin[the]selectionof[the]grandjury,"the #% "denialofselfrepresentationattrial,"the"denialofapublic J% ' trial,"anda"defectivereasonabledoubtinstruction."_Neder_Ԁv. &F") UnitedStates,119_S.Ct_.1827,1833(1999). (#+   Beyondthisspecificlaundrylistofconstitutionalerrors N*%- foundtobestructuraldefects,theSupremeCourthasonoccasion +J'/ usedexamplestoillustratewhatothererrorswouldqualify.In  Rosev.Clark,478U.S.570,578(1986),theSupremeCourt \ stated: X ` Similarly,harmlesserroranalysispresumablywouldnot   applyifacourtdirectedaverdictfortheprosecution   inacriminaltrialbyjury.Wehavestatedthat"a `  trialjudgeisprohibitedfromenteringajudgmentof 6   convictionordirectingthejurytocomeforwardwith  \  suchaverdict...regardlessofhowoverwhelmingly  2  theevidencemaypointinthatdirection."United   Statesv.MartinLinenSupplyCo.,430U.S.   (1977)(citationsomitted).Accord,Carpentersv. d  UnitedStates,330U.S.395(1947).Thisrulestems :  fromtheSixthAmendmentsclearcommandtoaffordjury `  trialsinseriouscriminalcases.SeeDuncanv. 6 _Lousisana_,391U.S.145(1968).Wheretherightis   altogetherdenied,theStatecannotcontendthatthe  deprivationwasharmlessbecausetheevidence h establishedthedefendantsguilt:theerrorinsucha > caseisthatthewrongentityjudgethedefendant d guilty. : `   InSullivanv.Louisiana,508U.S.275,281(1993)(quoting  Rosev.Clark,478U.S.at577),theCourtheldthatthe B [_d]enial_Ԁoftherighttoajuryverdictofguiltbeyonda > reasonabledoubtiscertainlyanerroroftheformersort  [structural],thejuryguaranteebeinga"basic  _protectio[n_]"whosepreciseeffectsareimmeasurable,but p  withoutwhichacriminaltrialcannotreliablyserveits F ! function. !l" InSullivan,theCourtfoundthatthefailuretoprovideajury "$ withaconstitutional"reasonabledoubt"instructionwasa t$& structuraldefect.Indoingso,theCourtexplained:  &p!( ItwouldnotsatisfytheSixthAmendmenttohaveajury '#* determinethatthedefendantisprobablyguilty,andthen (#+ leaveituptothejudgetodetermine(as[Inre]_Winship_[, ~)$, 397U.S.358(1970)]requires)whetherheisguiltybeyonda T*%- reasonabledoubt.Inotherwordsthejuryverdictrequired *+z&. bytheSixthAmendmentisajuryverdictofguiltybeyonda ,P'/ reasonabledoubt.  508U.S.at278. \   TheSixthAmendmenterrorrecognizedinRingv.Arizonafits X intothecategorydescribedasstructuralerror.Certainly,   therewasnoverdictfindingMr.Riveraguiltyofcapitalfirst `  degreemurder(i.e.firstdegreemurderwith"sufficient  \  aggravatingcircumstances").Unlikethesituationin_Neder_,the   elementthatthejurydidnothearseparatethelesserincluded d  offensefromthegreateroffense. `    MoreoverasaresultoftheRingerror,anelement   ("sufficientaggravatingcircumstances")wasremovedfromthe h guiltphaseofthetrialandwasplacedinthesentencing d portion.Withthistransferofanelementfromoneportionof  thecapitalproceedingtoanother,thestructureofthetrial l changed.Since"sufficientaggravatingcircumstances"werenot h treatedasanelement,thegrandjuryindictmentdidincludea  findingoftheelement.Asaresult,Floridalawheldthatthe p  Statewasundernoobligationtogivenoticeofwhataggravating !l" circumstanceswereassertedaspresentandsufficienttowarrant "$ adeathsentence._Menendez_Ԁv.State,368So.2d1278,1282n.21 t$& (Fla.1979).Further,Floridalawprovidedthatsincethelist  &p!( aggravatingcircumstanceswerenotelementsofthecrime,but '#* merelysentencingfactors,thelistcouldbeexpandedwithoutex x)$, postfactoconsequences.Combsv.State,403So.2d418,421 $+t&. (Fla.1981).Andbecausetheaggravatingfactorsweremerely  sentencingfactors,Floridalawpermittedanelementoffirst \ degreemurdertoberepeatedasanaggravatingcircumstance. X Johnsonv.Singletary,991F.2d663,669(11thCir.1993)("We   rejectJohnsonsargumentholdingthatthefactthatanelement `  oftheunderlyingconvictionandoneoftheaggravatingfactors  \  was_duplicative_Ԁdidnotinvalidatethataggravatingfactor"}.   Moreover,afailuretofindanaggravatingcircumstanceata d  defendantsfirsttrialdidnotconstituteanacquittalofthat `  aggravatingfactorataretrialora_resentencing_.Polandv.   Arizona,476U.S.147,155(1986)("underArizonascapital h scheme,thejudgesfindingofanyparticularaggravating d _circumstnace_Ԁdoesnotofitselfconvictadefendant...and  thefailuretofindanyparticularaggravatingcircumstancedoes l notacquitadefendant").Andcertainly,thejurywasnot h advisedoftheburdenitborewhenitconsideringatthepenalty  phasewhetheramajorityofthembelieved"sufficientaggravating p  circumstances"werepresent.Caldwellv.Mississippi,472U.S. !l" 320(1985);Combsv.State,525So.2dat857("Webelievethe "$ instructions,intheirentirety,properlyexplainthejurysrole t$& undertheFloridastatute").Finally,theactualfindingofwhat  &p!( aggravatingcircumstancesarepresentandwhethertheyare '#* sufficienttowarrantconsiderationofadeathsentencehasbeen x)$, madeindependentlybythejudge,notthejury.Pattersonv. $+t&. State,513So.2d1257,1261(Fla.1987)    UnderthecircumstancespresentedinMr.Riverascase,the \ Ringerrorcanonlybedescribedasstructural.MrRiverais X entitledtohabeasrelief.XXX:X   @  & CLAIMII   \    APPELLATECOUNSELFAILEDTORAISEONAPPEAL $  NUMEROUSMERITORIOUSISSUESWHICHWARRANT   REVERSALOFEITHERORBOTHTHECONVICTIONS   ANDSENTENCES.    / / / A.  INTRODUCTION.  `   Mr.Riverahadtheconstitutionalrighttotheeffective ( assistanceofcounselforpurposesofpresentinghisdirect  appealstothisCourt._Strickland_Ԁv.Washington,466U.S.668 0 (1984)."Afirstappealasofright[]isnotadjudicatedin , accordwithdueprocessoflawiftheappellantdoesnothavethe  effectiveassistanceofanattorney."_Evitts_Ԁv._Lucey_,469U.S. 4 387,396(1985).The_Strickland_testappliesequallyto 0  ineffectivenessallegationsoftrialcounselandappellate !" counsel.See_Orazio_Ԁv._Dugger_,876F.2d1508(11thCir.1989). 8#$   Becausetheconstitutionalviolationswhichoccurredduring $4 & Mr.Riverastrialwere"obviousontherecord"and"leapedout &!( uponevenacasualreadingoftranscript,"itcannotbesaidthat <