WPCst &BSk9W\{'{3+Ehk%=PB$\9 74{ aJYX EүJ^"oQݡ&M)`|5rY9# {al9NllEyC$Aakod,ʻ諾Œgf٭usrfFoݫ8.g4Y4h~Q"{|JrNyteKA>~-A9-!-ղlUR@dݷO|s-@l잞`Zel2I>okum[HvJ 5A1 9rcT6b45l?G*=ɚk z] ;g5 '紐iEŽk=zH3mx[ ^ 2"U9г_L[N ?♳}yUĜaDbISLw(#0 U7N" %G# 0(M#Nu#uw#U N%w:&4>&R&UFa&&Oz+,UN//2 0C45E'5)577w`:`:A JNOUUF[C\_^^^4b4b4bd0ggii 0lk*El donn lopppppppppp^ pp mpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppqqqqqyrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr BVt\\ccrsouth01.ccsr.state.fl.us\HP5N_Records,,,,0(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ k +$    21    _%XXAttheoutsetofitsdiscussion,theCourtnotedthatMr._Tompkins_Ԁ didnot  argueattrial,ashedoeshere,thathewasdeniedtheopportunitytoconfront  witnesses._Tompkins_,502So.2dat419.However,theCourtaddressedthe $ claimonthemeritsanddeniedreliefonthemerits.Thus,themeritsoftheclaim 6 arepresentlybeforetheCourt.(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularP0 ''x ''3|x<4 9Z .Courier New Regular  +$    17    _%XXThisinformationderivesfromtheextensivelydetailedfamilymember  affidavitsandbackgroundmaterialsstipulatedtobytheStateattheevidentiary  hearing.See_Exh_.12(Linda_Geschwender_);_Exh_.14(Diane_Pittman_);_Exh_.14 $ (_Laverna_ԀPearson);_Exh_.16(Jerry_Behringer_);_Exh_.17(Deborah_Behringer_);_Exh_. 6 18(Gladys_Staley_);_Exh_.19(DonaldPearson);_Exh_.20(ClarencePearson);_Exh_. H 21(Nathan_Tompkins_).Thefostercarerecordswereintroducedas_Exh_.10. E +$    3    _%XXSeealso_Woldt_Ԁv.People,64P.3d256,265(Colo.2003);Statev.Ring,65  P.3d915,94243(Ariz.2003).#XjX%V#  +$    2    _%XXCitationstothedirectappealrecordofMr._Tompkins_trialshallbeas R.  [pagenumber].CitationstotherecordofMr._Tompkins_firstRule3.850  proceedingswillbeas 1PCR.[pagenumber].CitationstotherecordofMr. $ _Tompkins_secondRule3.850proceedingswillbeas 2PCR.[pagenumber]. 6 Allothercitationsshallbeselfexplanatory.#XjX%S#(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular  +$    1    _%XXMr._Tompkins_ԀrecognizesthatthisCourthasdeniedmanyRingclaims  basedupontheexistenceofthepriorviolentfelonyaggravatingcircumstance  and/orupontheexistenceofaunanimousjuryrecommendationofdeath.Bothof $ thesefactorsarepresentinMr._Tompkins_case.However,Mr._Tompkins_ 6 respectfullysubmitsthatrelianceuponthesefactorstodenyreliefresultsfroman H incorrectapplicationofRing.#XjX%S#  +$    10    _%XXTheDueProcessclauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentrequiresthestateto  provebeyondareasonabledoubteveryfactnecessarytoconstituteacrime.Inre  _Winship_,397U.S.358(1970).#XjX%T#%XXj#XjX%#($       +$    9    _%XXUseoftheunderlyingfelonyinafelonymurdercaseasanautomatic  aggravatingcircumstanceestablishingdeatheligibilityviolates_Furman_Ԁv.  Georgia,408U.S.238(1972).Astatutoryschemethatprovidesautomaticdeath $ eligibilityinfelonymurdercases,butnotinpremeditatedmurdercasesisnearly 6 asbroad,andcertainlymorearbitrarythattheschemestruckdownin_Furman_.  +$    11    _%XXTheinstructiongivenMr._Tompkins_juryviolatedhisrightstodue  processandtotrialbyjurybecauseitunconstitutionallyplacedtheburdenof  proofonMr._Tompkins_Ԁtoprovethatthemitigatingcircumstancesoutweighedany $ aggravatingcircumstancesfoundtoexist._Mullaney_Ԁv.Wilbur,421U.S.684,698 6 (1975).#XjX%T# m +$    5    _%XXJusticeShawstatedthattheFloridadeathpenaltystatuteviolatedRing  becausethestatutedidnotrequireunanimousjuryfindingsofaggravating  circumstances._Bottoson_Ԁv.Moore,833So.2dat71718.Justice_Pariente_Ԁsaid $  thatunderRing,theFloridastatutewasflawedbecause Floridajuriesincapital  casesdonotdowhatRingmandates._Bottoson_Ԁv.Moore,833So.2dat725  (italicsinoriginal).ChiefJustice_Anstead_Ԁexplained, theprovisionforjudicial $ findingsoffactandthepurelyadvisoryroleofthejuryincapitalsentencingin 6 FloridafallsshortofthemandatesannouncedinRingand_Apprendi_forjuryfact H finding._Bottoson_Ԁv.Moore,833So.2dat706.JusticeLewisacknowledgedthat  Z RinghasapplicationtoFloridasdeathpenaltystatute,writingthatafterRing,a  l jurys liferecommendationmustberespected,andexplainedthat thevalidity . ~ ofjuryinstructionsgivenin[_Bottoson_s]caseshouldbeaddressedinlightof @  [_Bottoson_s]facialattackuponFloridasdeathpenaltyschemeonthebasisofthe R  holdinginRingv.Arizona._Bottoson_Ԁv.Moore,833So.2dat728,733.  +$    13    _%XXRobinsonv.State,29Fla.L.WeeklyS50(Fla.Jan.29,2004);_Zakrzewski_  v.State,28Fla.L.WeeklyS826(Fla.Nov.13,2003);CummingsElv.State,863  So.2d246(Fla.2003);Riverav.State,859So.2d495,508(Fla.2003);Wrightv. $ State,857So.2d861,87778(Fla.2003);Cooperv.State,856So.2d969,977 6 _nn_.6&8(Fla.2003);Jonesv.State,855So.2d611,619(Fla.2003);_Fennie_Ԁv. H State,855So.2d597,607n.10(Fla.2003);Allenv.State,854So.2d1255,1262  Z (Fla.2003);Owenv.Crosby,854So.2d182,193(Fla.2003);Chandlerv.State,  l 848So.2d1031,1034n.4(Fla.2003);Banksv.State,842So.2d788,793(Fla. . ~ 2003);Jonesv.State,845So.2d55,74(Fla.2003);Spencerv.State,842So.2d @  52,72(Fla.2003);Lucasv.State,841So.2d380,389(Fla.2003);Porterv. R  Crosby,840So.2d981,986(Fla.2003);_Fotopoulos_Ԁv.State,838So.2d1122, d  1136(Fla.2002);Brunov.Moore,838So.2d485,492(Fla.2002);_Marquard_Ԁv. v  State,850So.2d417,431n.12(Fla.2002);Kingv.Moore,831So.2d143(Fla.   2002);_Bottoson_Ԁv.Moore,833So.2d693(Fla.2002);Sweetv.Moore,822So.   2d1269,1275(Fla.2002);_Sireci_Ԁv.Moore,825So.2d882,888(Fla.2002);  _Bottoson_Ԁv.State,813So.2d31,36(Fla.2002);Kingv.State,808So.2d1237  (Fla.2002);Millsv.Moore,786So.2d532,53637(Fla.2001).#XjX%W#  +$    14    _%XXFurther,thisCourtsconsiderationofthemeritsofsuchclaimsis  consistentwithprecedent.Forexample,inThompsonv._Dugger_,515So.2d173,  175(Fla.1987),theCourtheldthattheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsdecisionin $  Hitchcockv._Dugger_,481U.S.393(1987), _represent[ed_]asufficientchangein  thelawthatpotentially_affect[ed_]aclassofpetitioners...todefeattheclaimofa  proceduraldefault._Apprendi_andRingcannotconceivablyberegardedasless $ drastic,fundamental,orsweepingchangesoflawthanHitchcock.#XjX%T#  +$    7    _%XXIfthejuryoverridedoesnotsurviveRing,itisnotlogicalthattheprior  violentfelony_aggravator_Ԁorthecontemporaneousfelonyconviction_aggravator_  satisfiesRingundertheparticularsofFloridasstatute.InJenkins,thisCourt $ statedthatthejurysliferecommendationshouldnothavebeenoverridden 6 becausethejurycouldhavegivenlittleweighttothepriorviolentfelony H _aggravator_.692So.2dat895.ThisreasoningiscorrectundertheFloridastatute:  Z theJenkinsjurycouldhavedeterminedthatthepriorviolentfelony_aggravator_  l wasnot sufficienttorenderMr.Jenkinseligibleforadeathsentence.Ajury . ~ whichultimatelyrecommendsdeathcouldalsodecidethatthepriorviolentfelony @  _aggravator_Ԁwasnot sufficienttorenderthedefendantdeatheligible,butthat R  severalfactorsjointlyrenderedthedefendantdeatheligible.Thereisnowayto d  knowthisbecauseFloridajuriesdonotreturnspecificfindings.Thus,reliance v  uponthepriorviolentfelony_aggravator_Ԁasestablishingeligibilityisreliancedoes   notcomportwiththeparticularsofFloridasstatuteanddoesnotsatisfyRing.#XjX%S# E +$    4    _%XXJonesv.State,855So.2d611,619(Fla.2003);Chandlerv.State,848So.  2d1031,1034n.4(Fla.2003);Butlerv.State,842So.2d817,834(Fla.2003);  Banksv.State,842So.2d788,793(Fla.2003);Lawrencev.State,846So.2d $ 440,451(Fla.2003);Lugov.State,845So.2d74,119n.79(Fla.2003); 6 _Kormondy_Ԁv.State,845So.2d41,54(Fla.2003);Jonesv.State,845So.2d55, H 74(Fla.2003);_Conahan_Ԁv.State,844So.2d629,642n.9(Fla.2003);Spencerv.  Z State,842So.2d52,72(Fla.2003);Lucasv.State,841So.2d380,389(Fla.  l 2003);Andersonv.State,841So.2d390,40809(Fla.2003);Grimv.State,841 . ~ So.2d455,465(Fla.2003);Porterv.Crosby,840So.2d981,986(Fla.2003); @  _Doorbal_Ԁv.State,837So.2d940,963(Fla.2003);_Fotopoulos_Ԁv.State,838So.2d R  1122,1136(Fla.2002);Brunov.Moore,838So.2d485,492(Fla.2002); d  _Marquard_Ԁv.State,850So.2d417,431n.12(Fla.2002);Chavezv.State,832So. v  2d730,767(Fla.2002).09Z+.Courier New Regular  +$    8    _%XXSee,e.g.,_Mahn_Ԁv.State,714So.2d391(Fla.1998);Jenkinsv.State,692  So.2d893(Fla.1997);_Fead_Ԁv.State,512So.2d176(Fla.1987);Brownv.State,  526So.2d903(Fla.1988);Ferryv.State,507So.2d1373(Fla.1987);Amazon $ v.State,487So.2d8(Fla.1986);Norrisv.State,429So.2d688(Fla.1983).#XjX%V# U +$    12    _XjXXX%XXjRingsrequirementthatjuries,notjudges,findtheelementsofthecharge  isderivedfromancientprinciplesoflaw: Theprinciplethatthejurywerethe  judgesoffactandthejudgesthedecidersoflawwasstatedasanestablished $ principleasearlyas1628byCoke.See1E.Coke,InstitutesoftheLawsof 6 England155b(1628).Jones,526U.S.at247.Waltonv.Arizonadidnot H contravenethoseprinciplesbutmisunderstoodthefactualrequirementsofthe  Z Arizonastatute.#%%T##XjX%s#  +$    22    _%XXTheSupremeCourtstatedinCrawford, Thatinculpatingstatementsare  giveninatestimonialsettingisnotanantidotetotheconfrontationproblem,but  ratherthetriggerthatmakestheClausesdemandmosturgent. Itisnotenough $ topointoutthatmostoftheusualsafeguardsoftheadversaryprocessattend < thestatement,whenthesinglesafeguardmissingistheonetheConfrontation  P Clausedemands .Crawford,SlipOp.at30(emphasisadded).  +$    15    _%XXThe1989evidentiaryhearingwaspresidedoverbyJudge_Coe_Ԁwhowas  laterrevealedtohaveengagedinexpartecontactwiththetrialprosecutorinthe   preparationofthesentencingorder.Judge_Coe_sundisclosedexpartecontact  andthefailuretodisclosethecontacttoMr._Tompkins_Ԁcounseltainthisfinding  thatnoprejudiceflowedfromthedeficientperformance. & +$    16    _%XXInitsrelianceonJudge_Coe_sfindingofnoprejudice,thisCourtfailedto  conductadenovoreview,seeStephensv.State,748So.2d1028(Fla.1999),and  unknowinglydeferredtoajudgewhohadengagedinundisclosedexpartecontact $ withtheStatethatifdisclosedwouldhaveresultedinhisdisqualification.  +$    6    _%XXSee,e.g.,Banksv.State,842So.2d788,793(Fla.2003);Lugov.State,  845So.2d74,119n.79(Fla.2003);Jonesv.State,845So.2d55,74(Fla.2003);  Grimv.State,841So.2d455,465(Fla.2003);_Doorbal_Ԁv.State,837So.2d940, $ 963(Fla.2003).((3$ !      0    +$    20    _%XXThisCourthassaidthat credibilityproblemscouldhaveservedto  mitigate[acapitaldefendants]crime. - Keen#XjX%T#%XXjv.State,775So.2d263,286(Fla.  2000); / _Pomeranz_Ԁv.State,703So.2d465,472(Fla.1997).#XjX%6#.Keen v. State, 775 So.2d 263, 286 (Fla. 2000)1 !  _XfXXXKeenv.State,    775So.2d263(Fla.2000)#X6hXXXf+#0Pomeranz v. State, 703 So.2d 465, 472 (Fla. 1997)1 !  _XfXXX_Pomeranz_Ԁv.State,  703So.2d465(Fla.1997)#X6hXXXf+#ةx0 4U  !  _Ԁ  18  %hXSeeFinneyv.State,660So.2d674(Fla.1995)("Evidenceofthe  circumstancesofaviolentorcapitalfelonymaybeconsideredinconnectionwith  the`priorviolentfelony'_aggravator_");Rhodesv.State,547So.2d1201(Fla. $ 1989)(same). o +$    19    _%XXItiscounsel'sobligationunder_Strickland_toneutralizethe_aggravators_Ԁas  wellaspresentmitigationevidence.Williamsv.Taylor,120S.Ct.at1515. d !  _ %XX@G G INTHE@@LLSUPREMECOURTOFFLORIDA  @!CASENO.SC04____ (   ______________________________________________________  P @ww#WAYNE_TOMPKINS_, ( x @%Petitioner, P  @)v. x  @ JAMESV.CROSBY,JR.,   @ Secretary,FloridaDepartmentofCorrections,  @%Respondent. ,   ______________________________________________________ @    ` ______________________________________________ h @ PETITIONFORWRITOFHABEASCORPUS @    ` ______________________________________________  T    `       `     h   MARTINJ._MCCLAIN_ |    `     h   SpecialAssistant_CCRC_ԄSouth     `     h   FloridaBarNo.0754773     `     h   141_N.E._Ԁ30thStreet      `     h   WiltonManors,FL33334 !    `     h   (305)9848344 "0  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(# 0(#(#  OFFICEOFTHECAPITAL %X  COLLATERAL   x   @  @  @  @  @  &l! REGIONALCOUNSELSOUTH0'" (#(#    `     h   101_N.E._Ԁ3rdAve. D(#!    `     h   Suite400 X)$"    `     h   FortLauderdale,FL33301 l*%#    `     h   COUNSELFORPETITIONER  ,'%  -(& @"TABLEOFCONTENTS      `     h      p      x  Page  &   L  @KK TABLEOFAUTHORITIES      `     h      p      x  Page  &   L  8jXXdd8@FF$INTRODUCTION     Thispetitionforhabeascorpusreliefisbeingfiledinordertoaddress & substantialclaimsoferrorarisingunderRingv.Arizona,122S.Ct.2428(2002), J Wigginsv.Smith,123S.Ct.2527(2003),andCrawfordv.Washington,2004  n U.S.Lexis1838(2004).InClaimI,Mr._Tompkins_Ԁarguesthathissentenceof B  deathviolatesRing._   1      _Ԁ f    InClaimII,Mr._Tompkins_ԀcontendsthatunderWiggins,thisCourtsprior   rejectionofMr._Tompkins_penaltyphaseineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaim  shouldbereconsidered.WigginsclearlyshowsthattheCourtsanalysisofthe " prejudiceprongofMr._Tompkins_claimdidnotconsiderthe totalityofthe F evidence,asisrequiredbytheSixthAmendment. j   InClaimIII,Mr._Tompkins_ԀsubmitsthatthisCourterroneouslydecidedthe > ConfrontationClauseissuewhichMr._Tompkins_Ԁpresentedondirectappeal. b CrawfordmakescleartheerrorsintheCourtsanalysisoftheissue,andMr.   _Tompkins_ԀcontendsthattheCourtshouldrevisitthatissue. "  @$JURISDICTION     AwritofhabeascorpusisanoriginalproceedinginthisCourtgovernedby ( Fla.R.App.P.9.100.ThisCourthasoriginaljurisdictionunderFla.R.App.P. L 9.030(a)(3)andArticleV,3(b)(9),Fla.Const.TheConstitutionoftheStateof  p Floridaguaranteesthat"[_t]he_Ԁwritofhabeascorpusshallbe_grantable_Ԁofright, D  freelyandwithoutcost."Art.I,13,Fla.Const. h   @k k REQUESTFORORALARGUMENT      Mr._Tompkins_Ԁrequestsoralargumentonthispetition.   @4 4 STATEMENTOFTHECASEANDFACTS (    Mr._Tompkins_Ԁwaschargedbyindictmentwithfirstdegreemurder.The P indictmentalleged, WAYNE_TOMPKINS_,onthe24thdayofMarch,1983,... $t fromapremeditateddesigntoeffectthedeathofLISALEA_DeCARR_,ahuman H being,didmurderthesaidLISALEA_DeCARR_Ԁbyasphyxiation_(R_.489)._   2      _ԀThe l indictmentdidnotchargeMr._Tompkins_Ԁwithanyaccompanyingfelonies.     Mr._Tompkins_Ԁplednotguilty,andtrialcommencedSeptember16,1983. " Duringvoirdire,theprosecutortoldthejurythatthecourt,notthejury,would $(  decidethesentenceifMr._Tompkins_Ԁwasconvictedoffirstdegreemurder,  repeatedlydescribingthejurysfunctionatthepenaltyphaseas advisoryanda $  recommendation_(R_.55,56,57,58,73,74,75,76,90).Theprosecutortoldthe H jury, Theultimatedecisionastothepossiblepunishmentismadebythejudge,  l and thejuryhaswhatisknownasanadvisoryroleduringthepenaltyphase_(R_. @  55).Theprosecutorcontrastedthejurysobligationtoreachaunanimousverdict d  intheguilt/innocencephasewiththefactthatitspenaltyphaserecommendation    wouldbebymajorityvote_(R_.55).    Duringtheguilt/innocencephase,theStatepresentedeightwitnesses,and   thedefensepresentednone.TheStatearguedthatMr._Tompkins_Ԁwasguiltyof D firstdegreemurderundereitherapremeditatedorfelonymurdertheory_(R_.336 h 39).Thecourtinstructedthejuryonpremeditatedandfelonymurder_(R_.38384). < ThejuryreturnedageneralverdictfindingMr._Tompkins_Ԁguiltyoffirstdegree ` murder aschargedintheIndictment_(R_.658).     Thepenaltyphasebeganimmediatelyfollowingtheguiltyverdict.The " StatepresentedevidenceregardingMr._Tompkins_priorfelonyconvictions_(R_. $  41032),andthedefensepresentedbrieftestimonyfromthreefamilymembers_(R_. &@"  43238).Inclosingargument,theprosecutortoldthejurorstheirfirststepin )d$" reachingarecommendedsentencewouldbeto determineifsufficient 8+&$ aggravatingcircumstances...existtowarrantyourrecommendationforthedeath  penalty_(R_.440).Theprosecutorthenargued, therearethreesufficient $ aggravatingcircumstances_(R_.441).Theprosecutorcontendedthattheprior H violentfelony_aggravator_Ԁwas asufficient,importantaggravatingcircumstance  l _(R_.444).Theprosecutorarguedthatthemurderoccurredduringthecommission @  ofsexualbatteryandthatthisalsowasan important,sufficientaggravating d  circumstance_(R_.444).Thesetwoaggravatingcircumstances bythemselves   would[warrant]thedeathpenalty,accordingtotheprosecutor_(R_.445).When  thejuryalsoconsideredtheheinous,atrociousorcruel_aggravator_,theprosecutor   argued, Threeaggravating,important,sufficientcircumstancesexists[sic]inthis D particularcase_(R_.446). h   Thecourtinstructedthejurorsregardingtheprocesstheyweretofollowin < reachingarecommendation.First,thejurorsweretodetermine whether ` sufficientaggravatingcircumstancesexisttojustifytheimpositionofthedeath   penalty_(R_.452).Ifthejurorsdeterminedthatsufficient_aggravators_Ԁexisted,they " werethenrequired todeterminewhethermitigatingcircumstancesexistthat $  outweightheaggravatingcircumstances_(R_.453).Boththeprosecutorandthe &@"  courttoldthejurorsthattheirdecisionwas advisoryora recommendation,as )d$" didtheverdictform_(R_.407,439,440,441,447,452,453,454,455,456). 8+&$   Thejuryrecommendedthedeathpenalty,andthejudgeimmediately  imposedasentenceofdeath,butdidnotannounceanyfindingsregarding $ aggravatingormitigatingcircumstances_(R_.45758).Later,thecourtenteredan H orderfindingthreeaggravatingcircumstances:1)priorviolentfelonyconviction,  l 2)committedinthecourseafelony,and3)heinous,atrociousorcruel_(R_.678 @  80).Thecourtfoundonemitigatingcircumstance,Mr._Tompkins_age_(R_.680). d  ThisCourtaffirmedtheconvictionandsentence._Tompkins_Ԁv.State,502So.2d   415(Fla.),cert.denied,483U.S.1033(1987).    Afteradeathwarrantwassignedin1989,Mr._Tompkins_Ԁfiledapost   convictionmotion,andthecircuitcourtheldanevidentiaryhearing.Thoughthe D circuitcourtfoundtrialcounselsperformancewasdeficientregardingthepenalty h phase,thecourtdeniedrelief.ThisCourtstayedtheexecutionandlateraffirmed < thedenialofrelief._Tompkins_Ԁv._Dugger_,549So.2d1370(Fla.1989).Aftera ` seconddeathwarrant,Mr._Tompkins_Ԁfiledafederalhabeaspetition,andthe   federaldistrictcourtstayedtheexecution.Anamendedpetitionwassubsequently " filedanddenied.Onappeal,theEleventhCircuitaffirmed._Tompkins_Ԁv. $  Moore,193F.3d1327(11thCir.1999),cert.denied,121_S.Ct_.149(2000). &@"    Afterthesigningofathirddeathwarrantin2001,Mr._Tompkins_Ԁfileda )d$" numberofmotions,includingaMotionforDNATesting(2PCR.3156),a 8+&$ MotiontoCompelProductionofPublicRecords,andasecondMotiontoVacate  toFla.R._Crim_.P.3.851(2PCR.182307).Thelowercourttookevidenceon $ variousofthesemotions.Thecircuitcourtheardargumentandgrantedan H evidentiaryhearingonClaimVoftheRule3.850motionpertainingtotheissueof  l thesentencingjudgeserrorinfailingtoindependentlyweighaggravatingand @  mitigatingcircumstancesandinfailingtodisclosetoMr._Tompkins_Ԁthefactthat d  theStatepreparedthefindingsinsupportofthedeathsentence.Afterthe   evidentiaryhearing,thecourtgrantedsentencingreliefonClaimVandvacated  Mr._Tompkins_'deathsentence(2PCR.433et.seq.).Thecircuitcourtdeniedall   otherclaimswithoutanevidentiaryhearing(Id.).Mr._Tompkins_Ԁappealedthe D denialoftheseclaims,andtheStatecrossappealedthelowercourt'sgrantof h sentencingrelief.ThisCourtaffirmedthecircuitcourtsdenialofsomeclaims < andreversedthatcourtsgrantofsentencingrelief._Tompkins_Ԁv.State,28Fla.L. ` WeeklyS767(Fla.Oct.9,2003).   @66" CLAIMSFORRELIEF " @'CLAIMI  p    $   FLORIDA'SCAPITALSENTENCINGSTATUTEVIOLATES &H"  THESIXTHANDFOURTEENTHAMENDMENTS.   (\#! = A.0  InFlorida,DeathIsNotAuthorizedByAVerdictOfGuiltOfFirst 6*%# DegreeMurder. >J+&$(#(#   InFlorida,921.141,Fla.Stat.,requiresboththejuryandthetrialjudgeto  makefactualdeterminationsbeforeadeathsentencemaybeimposed.They(1) $ mustfindthat sufficientaggravatingcircumstancesexisttojustifyimpositionof H death,and(2)mustfindthat thereareinsufficientmitigatingcircumstancesto  l outweightheaggravatingcircumstances.921.141(3),Fla.Stat.(emphasis @  added).Ifthesefindingsarenotmade, thecourtshallimposesentenceoflife d  imprisonmentinaccordancewith[]775.082.Id.(emphasisadded).     InconformitywithFloridalaw,Mr._Tompkins_jurywasinstructed:  ` Asyouhavebeentold,thefinaldecisionhas[sic]towhatpunishment   shallbeimposedismyresponsibility;however,itisyourdutyto 2 followthelawthatwillnowbegiventoyoubytheCourtandrender D tomeanadvisorysentencebaseduponyourdeterminationasto V  whethersufficientaggravatingcircumstancesexisttojustifythe h impositionofthedeathpenalty and whethertheresufficient ,| mitigatingcircumstancesexisttooutweighanyaggravating D circumstancesfoundtoexist.  X @YY-D*** ~  Now,ifyoufindthattheaggravatingcircumstancesdonot ! justifythedeathpenalty,youradvisorysentenceshouldbeoneof " lifeimprisonmentwithoutthepossibilityofparolefortwentyfive # years. $.    Shouldyoufindsufficientaggravatingcircumstancesdoexist, 'T"  itwillthenbeyourdutytodeterminewhetherthemitigating (f#! circumstancesexistthatoutweightheaggravatingcircumstances. ()x$" @B` _(R_.45253)(emphasisadded). L+&$   ThestepsinFlorida,likethestepsinMissouri, requirefactualfindingsthat  areprerequisitestothetrieroffactsdeterminationthatadefendantisdeath $ eligible.SeeStatev._Whitfield_,107S.W.3d253,25861(Mo.2003).Step1in H thejuryinstructionsatMr._Tompkins_trialrequireddeterminingwhether  l  sufficientaggravatingcircumstancesexistedtojustifyimpositionofdeath. @  MissourisStep2isindistinguishable,requiringadeterminationofwhetherthe d  evidenceofallaggravatingcircumstances warrantsimposingthedeathsentence.   Step2inthejuryinstructionsatMr._Tompkins_trialrequireddeterminingwhether   there[_we]re_Ԁinsufficientmitigatingcircumstancestooutweightheaggravating   circumstances.MissourisStep3,aswellasNevadasStep2,areidentical, D requiringadeterminationofwhethermitigatingcircumstancesoutweigh h aggravatingcircumstances.SeeJohnsonv.State,59P.3d450(Nev.2002) <   InFlorida,asinMissouriandNevada,the_sentencer_Ԁdoesnotconsiderthe ` ultimatequestionofwhetherornottoimposedeathuntiltheeligibilitystepsare   completed._    3      _ԀAfterthetwostepsoutlinedinthejuryinstructionsgiventoMr. " _Tompkins_jury,theFloridastatutedirectsthatthejuryistodetermine, [_b]ased_ $  ontheseconsiderations,whetherthedefendantshouldbesentencedtolife &@"  imprisonmentordeath.921.141(2)_(c_),Fla.Stat.Thestructureofthestatute  clearlyestablishesthatthestepswhichoccurbeforethisfinaldeterminationare $ necessarytomakethedefendanteligibleforthisultimatedetermination,thatis,to H renderthedefendantdeatheligible.  l   Floridascapitalsentencingschemeviolatesthejurytrialguaranteesofthe @  SixthandFourteenthAmendmentsbecauseitdoesnotprovideforabinding d  unanimousjuryverdictwithrespecttoan aggravatingfact[which]isanelement   oftheaggravatedcrimepunishablebydeath.Ringv.Arizona,120S.Ct.2428,  2441(2002)(quoting_Apprendi_,530U.S.at501(Thomas,J.,concurring)).Under   Ring,thequestionisnotwhetherdeathisanauthorizedpunishmentinafirst D degreemurdercase,butwhetherthe factsincreasingpunishmentbeyondthe h maximumauthorizedbyaguiltyverdictstandingalone,122S.Ct.at2441,are < foundbythejudgeorjury. IfaStatemakesanincreaseinadefendants ` authorizedpunishmentcontingentonthefindingofafact,thatfactnomatterhow   theStatelabelsitmustbefoundbyajurybeyondareasonabledoubt.Ring,122 " S.Ct.at2439.AStatemaynotavoidtheSixthAmendmentby _specif[ying_] $  deathorlifeimprisonmentastheonlysentencingoptionsbecause therelevant &@"  inquiryisonenotofform,butofeffect.Id.at2440(quoting_Apprendi_,530U.S. )d$" at494).Iftheeffectoffindinganaggravatingcircumstance _expose[s_]the 8+&$ defendanttoagreaterpunishmentthanthatauthorizedbythejurysguilty  verdict,_Apprendi_,530U.S.at494,thecircumstanceisanelementwhichmustbe $ foundbyajurybeyondareasonabledoubt.Ring,122S.Ct.at244041. H   FloridasdeathsentencingprocessexposesFloridacapitaldefendants toa  l penaltyexceedingthemaximum[they]wouldreceiveifpunishedaccordingtothe @  factsreflectedinthejuryverdictalone.Ring,122S.Ct.at2440,quoting d  _Apprendi_,530U.S.at483.Floridascapitalsentencingstatutemakesimposition   ofthedeathpenaltycontingentuponfactualfindingsmadeafteraverdictfinding  thedefendantguiltyoffirstdegreemurder.Section775.082oftheFlorida   Statutesprovidesthatapersonconvictedoffirstdegreemurder shallbe D sentencedtolifeimprisonment unlesstheproceedingsheldtodeterminesentence h accordingtotheproceduresetforthin921.141resultinfindingsbythecourt < thatsuchpersonshallbepunishedbydeath(emphasisadded). `    TheFloridastatutedoesnotrequireaspecialverdictoneachofthe   eligibilitystepsorrequirethejurysvotetobeunanimousorbeyondareasonable " doubtastotheexistenceof sufficientaggravatingcircumstances,orasto $  mitigatingcircumstancesexistwhichoutweightheaggravatingcircumstances. &@"  Thestatuterequiresonlyamajorityvoteofthejuryinsupportofitsadvisory )d$" sentence.921.141(2),Fla.Stat.Assuch,theadvisoryrecommendationdoes 8+&$ notsatisfytheSixthAmendmentmandates.    Astoelementsofanoffense,thisCourthasrecognizedthatajudgemaynot $ make_factfindings_Ԁ onmattersassociatedwiththecriminalepisodebecausethat H  wouldbeaninvasionofthejuryshistoricalfunction.Statev._Overfelt_,457So.  l 2d1385,1387(Fla.1984).UnderFla.R._Crim_.P.3.440,ajuryverdictonthe @  elementsofacriminalchargemustbeunanimous.Sincejuryunanimityhaslong d  beenthepracticeinFlorida, Itisthereforesettledthat[_i]n_Ԁthisstate,theverdict   ofthejurymustbeunanimousandthatanyinterferencewiththisrightdeniesthe  defendantafairtrial._Flanning_Ԁv.State,597So.2d864,867(Fla.3dDCA   1992),quotingJonesv.State,92So.2d261(Fla.1956).Takentogether,Ring D andFloridalawestablishthatthepenaltyphasejurysvoteonthetwofactual h determinationssetforthinthestatuteandthejuryinstructionmustbeunanimous. <   Theelementsrequiredtobeestablishedinorderforconsiderationofadeath ` sentencewerethat sufficientaggravatingcircumstances_exist[ed_]toallow   considerationofadeathsentenceandthatmitigatingcircumstancessufficientto " outweightheaggravatingcircumstancesdidnotexist.921.141(3),Fla.Stat. $  Mr._Tompkins_jurywasnotinstructedthattheseelementsmustbeprovedbeyond &@"  areasonabledoubt.Suchanerrorcanneverbeharmless: [_T]he_Ԁjuryverdict )d$" requiredbytheSixthAmendmentisajuryverdictofguiltybeyondareasonable 8+&$ doubt.Sullivanv.Louisiana,508U.S.275,278(1993).Whenthejuryhasnot  beeninstructedonthereasonabledoubtstandard, therehasbeennojuryverdict $ withinthemeaningoftheSixthAmendment,andtherefore, [_t]here_Ԁisnoobject, H sotospeak,uponwhichharmlesserrorscrutinycanoperate.Id.at280.  l   ThelanguageofFloridascapitalsentencingstatute,thisCourtscaselaw, @  andtheFloridaRulesofCriminalProcedureestablishthatthelimitedroleofa d  FloridapenaltyphasejurydoesnotsatisfytheSixthAmendment.Thejurydoes   notreturnbindingfactualfindings,thejurydoesnotreturnaverdictonthetwo  factualprerequisitesrequiredbythestatutebeforeadeathsentencemaybe   considered,thejuryvoteisnotrequiredtobeunanimous,andthejuryisnot D instructedonthereasonabledoubtstandardastotwoofthethreefactual h determinationsrequiredbythestatute.Mr._Tompkins_deathsentenceviolatesthe < SixthAmendment. `  B.0  _Bottoson_Ԁv.MooreandKingv.MooreDoNotDisposeOfThisClaim.  (#(#   OnOctober24,2002,thisCourtissueditsdecisionsin_Bottoson_Ԁv.Moore, " 833So.2d693(Fla.2002),andKingv.Moore,831So.2d143(Fla.2002), $   denyingreliefonRingclaims.TheCourthasrepeatedlycitedthesetwocases &D"  whendenyingRingclaimsinsubsequentcases._   4      _ԀHowever,foranumberof   reasons,_Bottoson_andKingdidnotresolveRingsapplicationinMr._Tompkins_ $ case.Inbothcases,eachjusticewroteaseparateopinionexplaininghisorher H reasoningfordenyingrelief.Whileaper_curiam_opinionannouncedtheresultin  l bothcases,inneithercasedidamajorityjointheper_curiam_opinionorits @  reasoning.Inbothcases,fourjusticeswroteseparateopinionsexplainingthat d  theydidnotjointheper_curiam_Ԁopinion,but _concur[red_]inresultonly.   _Bottoson_Ԁv.Moore,833So.2dat695;Kingv.Moore,831So.2dat145.The  fouropinionsconcurringinresultonlyraisedsubstantialconcernsaboutthe   constitutionalityofFloridascapitalsentencingstatuteinlightofRing._z   5      _ԀAlthough D denyingreliefunderRing,theopinionsin_Bottoson_andKingdonotdisposeof  Mr._Tompkins_claimbecausetherewasnomajorityopinionandbecausefour $ membersoftheCourtfoundFloridascapitalsentencingstatuteviolatedRing. H   SomemembersoftheCourtin_Bottoson_andKingreliedupontheexistence  l ofthepriorviolentfelony_aggravator_Ԁtodenyrelief.See,e.g.,_Bottoson_,833So. @  2dat71819(Shaw,J.,concurringinresultonly);_Bottoson_,833So.2dat722 d  (_Pariente_,J.,concurringinresultonly).Sincethesedecisions,theCourthas   repeatedlyreliedupontheexistenceofthepriorviolentfelony_aggravator_Ԁor  contemporaneousfelonyconvictionstodenyRingclaims._)V    6      _ԀMr._Tompkins_   respectfullysubmitsthatthisviewiserroneous. D   First,relyingupontheexistenceofthepriorviolentfelony_aggravator_Ԁto  denyhimthebenefitofRingisunconstitutionalundertheparticularsofFloridas $ capitalsentencingscheme.Asexplainedabove,theFloridastatuterequires H certainfindingsbeforeadefendantiseligibleforadeathsentence:the_sentencer_  l (1)mustfindthat sufficientaggravatingcircumstancesexisttojustifyimposition @  ofdeath,and(2)mustfindthat thereareinsufficientmitigatingcircumstancesto d  outweightheaggravatingcircumstances.Section921.141(3),Fla.Stat.Under   thisprocessofestablishingeligibility,theexistenceofapriorviolentfelony  convictiondoesnotestablishthepresenceofeitherofthesemandatoryfindings.     TheMissouriSupremeCourthasexplainedtheflawinherentinrelying D upontheexistenceofapriorviolentfelonyconvictionasautomaticallysatisfying h Ring.Statev._Whitfield_,107S.W.3d253,25861(Mo.2003).Althoughthe < MissouriSupremeCourtsexplanationisinthecontextofaharmlesserror ` analysis,thecourtsanalysisshowsthatinastatewithamultiplestepprocedure   fordeterminingdeatheligibility,theexistenceofapriorviolentfelonyconviction " doesnotsatisfythestepthatrequiresadeterminationaswhethertheaggravating $  circumstancesaresufficienttowarrantdeath,orthestepthatrequiresdetermining &@"  whetherthemitigatingcircumstancesoutweightheaggravatingcircumstances. )d$"   Second,theflawinrelyinguponapriorviolentfelonyconvictionto 8+&$ establisheligibilityisrevealedbytheviewthatthejuryoverridedoesnotsurvive  Ring.Forexample,JusticeLewisacknowledgedthatafterRing,ajurys life $ recommendationmustberespected._Bottoson_Ԁv.Moore,833So.2dat728.He H concludedthatastojuryoverridesinfavorofdeath,FloridalawandRingarein  l  irreconcilableconflict.Id._   7      _ԀInmanycasesinwhichthisCourthasreversedan @  overrideandorderedalifesentenceimposed,thetrialcourthadfoundtheprior d  violentfelony_aggravator_Ԁorthecontemporaneousfelonyconviction_aggravator_._   8      _Ԁ     Finally,theviewthattheexistenceofapriorviolentfelonyorof  contemporaneousfelonyconvictionssatisfiesRingreliesupon_Almendarez_ԄTorres   v.UnitedStates,523U.S.224(1998).Mr._Tompkins_Ԁcontendsthat_Almendarez_Ԅ  Torresdoesnotsurvive_Apprendi_andRing.See_Apprendi_,530U.S.at489& $ n.15;Id.,530U.S.at52021(Thomas,J.,concurring).Further,_Apprendi_ H specificallyrestricted_Almendarez_ԄTorrestoits uniquefacts._   9      _  l  C.0  UnderRing,Mr._Tompkins_DeathSentenceIsUnconstitutional. @ (#(#   EvenifthisCourtweretoattempttosaveMr._Tompkins_sentenceofdeath f  fromthescopeofRingbyredefiningthejurysroleundertheFloridacapital   sentencingstatute,Mr._Tompkins_deathsentencewouldviolatetheSixth  Amendment.Numerouserrorsinvolvingcommentstothejuryandinthepenalty " phasejuryinstructionsoccurredinMr._Tompkins_case.Thus,inadditiontothe F structuralinfirmityofthestatute,theseerrorsvitiateanypossibleSixth j AmendmentvaliditytothejurysadvisorysentenceinMr._Tompkins_case. >   Mr._Tompkins_deathsentenceviolatestheSixthAmendmentbecausethe b judge,notthejury,madethefactfindingswhichrenderedMr.Tompkinseligible   foradeathsentence.Additionally,becauseMr.Tompkinsjurywasnever " requiredtofindthestatutoryelementofthepresence sufficientaggravating $  circumstancesbeyondareasonabledoubt,theerrorherecannotbesubjectedtoa  harmlesserroranalysis.Sullivanv.Louisiana,508U.S.275,27980(1993). $   Further,theprosecutorandthejudgetoldMr.Tompkinsjurythatthe final H decisionastosentencewasforthejudge;thejuryprovideda recommendation  l oran advisorysentence. However, [I]tisconstitutionallyimpermissibletorest @  adeathsentenceonadeterminationmadebyasentencerwhohasbeenledto p  believethattheresponsibilityfordeterminingtheappropriatenessofthe   defendantsdeathrestselsewhere.Caldwellv.Mississippi,472U.S.320,32829  (1985).Therefore,thejurysdeathrecommendationcannotbeusedtosavethe , deathsentencebecausetodosowouldviolatetheEighthAmendmentruleof P Caldwell.A recommendationmadebypersonswhobelievetheyareonly $t makinga recommendationisnota verdictundertheSixthAmendment.Such H anerrorcanneverbeharmless.Sullivanv.Louisiana,508U.S.275,278(1993). l Whenthejuryhasbeentolditisonlyproviding advice, therehasbeennojury   verdictwithinthemeaningoftheSixthAmendment,andtherefore, [_t]here_Ԁisno " object,sotospeak,uponwhichharmlesserrorscrutinycanoperate.Id.at280. $(    RingalsorevealsthatMr._Tompkins_deathsentenceisinvalidbecausethe &L"  elementsoftheoffensenecessarytoestablishcapitalmurderwerenotchargedin  )p$" theindictment.Ringheldthatadeathpenaltystatutes aggravatingfactors D+&$ operateasthefunctionalequivalentofanelementofagreateroffense.Ring,  122S.Ct.at2443,quoting_Apprendi_,530U.S.at493n.19.Jonesv.United $ States,526U.S.227(1999),heldthat undertheDueProcessClauseoftheFifth H AmendmentandthenoticeandjuryguaranteesoftheSixthAmendment,anyfact  l (otherthanpriorconviction)thatincreasesthemaximumpenaltyforacrimemust @  bechargedinanindictment,submittedtoajury,andprovenbeyondareasonable d  doubt.Jones,526U.S.at243,n.6._Apprendi_heldthattheFourteenth   Amendmentaffordscitizensthesameprotectionswhentheyareprosecutedunder  statelaw._Apprendi_,530U.S.at47576.Floridalawrequiresevery elementof   anoffensetobeallegedintheinformationorindictment.Statev.Dye,346So. D 2d538,541(Fla.1977);Statev.Gray,435So.2d816,818(Fla.1983);_Chicone_ h v.State,684So.2d736,744(Fla.1996).BecausetheStatedidnotsubmittothe < grandjuryandtheindictmentdidnotstatetheessentialelementsofcapital ` murder,Mr._Tompkins_rightsunderArticleI,section15oftheFlorida   ConstitutionandtheSixthAmendmenttothefederalConstitutionwereviolated. "   Finally,RingrevealsthatMr._Tompkins_deathsentencewasimposedin $  violationoftheDueProcessClauseoftheFifthAmendmentandthejurytrial &@"   rightguaranteedbytheSixthAmendmentbecauseMr._Tompkins_Ԁwasrequiredto )d$" provethenonexistenceofaneligibilityelement._   10      _ԀAdeathsentencemaynotbe   imposedunlessthejudgefindsthefactthatsufficientmitigatingcircumstancesdo $ notexisttooutweighanyaggravatingcircumstances.921.141(3),Fla.Stat. H Becauseimpositionofadeathsentenceiscontingentuponthepresenceofthis  l fact,andthemaximumsentencethatcouldbeimposedintheabsenceofthat @  findingwaslifeimprisonment,theSixthAmendmentrequiredthattheStateto d  provebeyondareasonabledoubtthatany_aggravators_Ԁoutweighthemitigators.   Ring,120S.Ct.at2432( Capitaldefendants...areentitledtoajury  determinationofanyfactonwhichthelegislatureconditionsanincreaseintheir   maximumpunishment.).Yet,Mr._Tompkins_jurywasinstructed, Shouldyou D findsufficientaggravatingcircumstancestoexist,itwillthenbeyourdutyto h determinewhetherornotsufficientmitigatingcircumstancesexisttooutweighthe < aggravatingcircumstancesfoundtoexist_(R_.453)._   11      _ `   ThefactthatMr._Tompkins_juryunanimouslyrecommendedadeath   sentencedoesnotnegatetheSixthAmendmentviolationsunderRing.Becauseof  theRingerrorsdescribedabove,theunanimousrecommendationwasnotaSixth $ Amendment verdict.ThejurywasnottoldthattheStatewasrequiredto H establishthestepsoftheeligibilityprocessbeyondareasonabledoubt.Thejury  l wasnottoldthattheStatewasrequiredtoprovebeyondareasonabledoubtthat @  aggravatingcircumstancesoutweighedmitigatingcircumstances.Rather,thejury d  wastoldtodecidewhethermitigatingcircumstancesoutweighed_aggravators_.The   jurywastolditsdecisionwas advisoryora recommendation,notthatitwasa   verdictandnotthatthejurywastomakeultimatefindingsofdeatheligibility   facts.ThejurysunanimityinMr._Tompkins_casedoesnotrendertheseerrors D harmless.Becauseoftheseerrors, therehasbeennojuryverdictwithinthe h meaningoftheSixthAmendment,andtherefore, [_t]here_Ԁisnoobject,soto < speak,uponwhichharmlesserrorscrutinycanoperate.Sullivanv.Louisiana, ` 508U.S.275,278(1993).    D.0  RingAddressesAnIssueOfStatutoryConstruction,AndTherefore "  RetroactivityIsNotAtIssue. # (#(# %%  ThequestionwhichRingv.Arizona,122S.Ct.2428(2002),decidedwas %2! whatfactsconstitute elementsincapitalsentencingproceedings.#%%#%%ԀThebulkof (V#! theRingopinionaddresseshowtodeterminewhetherafactisan elementofa **z%# crime.SeeRing,122S.Ct.at243743.ThequestioninRingwasnotwhetherthe  SixthAmendmentrequiresajurytodecideelements.Thathasbeenagivensince $ theBillofRightswasadopted._    12      _ԀJusticeThomashasexplained: H  ` Thiscaseturnsontheseeminglysimplequestionofwhat  l constitutesa crime.UndertheFederalConstitution, theaccused . ~ hastheright(1) tobeinformedofthenatureandcauseofthe @  accusation(thatis,thebasisonwhichheisaccusedofacrime),(2) R  tobe heldtoanswerforacapital,orotherwiseinfamouscrimeonly d  on#%%# Vv%Ԁ#% Vv#%%anindictmentorpresentmentofagrandjury,and(3)tobetried v  by animpartialjuryoftheStateanddistrictwhereinthecrimeshall   havebeencommitted._Amdts_.5and6.SeealsoArt.III,[Sec.]2,cl.   3( TheTrialofallCrimes...shallbebyJury).Withtheexception  oftheGrandJuryClause,see_Hurtado_Ԁv.California,110U.S.516,  538...(1884),theCourthasheldthattheseprotectionsapplyinstate ( prosecutions.Herringv.NewYork,422U.S.853,857,andn.7... : (1975).Further,theCourthasheldthatdueprocessrequiresthatthe L juryfindbeyondareasonabledoubteveryfactnecessarytoconstitute ^ thecrime.Inre_Winship_,397U.S.358,364...(1970).  p  ` Alloftheseconstitutionalprotectionsturnondetermining D whichfactsconstitutethe crimethatis,whichfactsarethe V  elementsor ingredientsofacrime.Inorderforanaccusationof h acrime(whetherbyindictmentorsomeotherform)tobeproper z underthecommonlaw,andthusproperunderthecodificationofthe   commonlawrightsintheFifthandSixthAmendments,itmustallege#%%ٵ# Vv% ! #% Vv1#%%allelementsofthatcrime;likewise,inorderforajurytrialofacrime " tobeproper,allelementsofthecrimemustbeprovedtothejury  (and,under_Winship_,provedbeyondareasonabledoubt).  _Apprendi_,120S.Ct.at236768(Thomas,J.,concurring)(emphasisadded). 6 JusticeThomasexplainedthatcourtshave longhadtoconsiderwhichfactsare  Z elements,butthatoncethatquestionisanswered, itisthenasimplematterto . ~ applythatanswertowhateverconstitutionalrightmaybeatissueinacasehere, R  _Winship_andtherighttotrialbyjury.Id.at2368. v  #%%#%%  JustasJusticeThomasexplainedin_Apprendi_,therewasnoquestionin   Ringthatthejurytrialrightappliestoelements.ThedisputeinRinginvolved  whatconstituted#%%]# Vv%Ԁ#% Vv#%%anelement.Thus,thequestioninRingisakintoastatutory 2 constructionissue,and retroactivityisnotatissue._Fiore_Ԁv.White,531U.S. f 225,226(2001);_Bunkley_Ԁv.Florida,123S.Ct.2020,2023(2003).Thatis,the : SixthAmendmentrighttohaveajurydecideelementsisabedrock,indisputable ^ right.Mr._Tompkins_ԀwasentitledtothisSixthAmendmentprotectionatthetime  ofhistrial.Ringsimplyclarifiedthatfactsrenderingadefendanteligiblefora ! deathsentenceareelementsofcapital#%%# Vv%Ԁ#% Vv(#%%murdersubjecttotheSixthAmendment. # #%%k# %  TherulinginRingconcernsanissueofsubstantivecriminallaw.In %N! concludingthattheSixthAmendmentrequiresthatthejury,ratherthanthejudge, "(r#! determinetheexistenceofaggravatingfactors,theSupremeCourtdescribed F*%# aggravatingfactorsas thefunctionalequivalentofanelementofagreater  offense.Ring,122_S.Ct_.at2243(citing_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,530U.S.466, $ 494,n.19(2000)).Ringclarifiedtheelementsofthe greateroffenseofcapital H murder.Asexplainedabove,Ringdidnotdecideaproceduralquestion(i.e.,  l whethertheSixthAmendmentrequiresthatjuriesdecideelements),buta @  substantivequestion(whatisanelement).Thus,retroactiveapplicationis d  requiredunder_Bousley_Ԁv.UnitedStates,523U.S.614(1998),becausetheruling   addresses#% # Vv%Ԁ#% Vv# %amatterofsubstantivecriminallaw,notaproceduralrule.#%  #   E.  RingAppliesRetroactivelyUnder_Witt_Ԁv.State.  0   Alternatively,Ringmeetsthecriteriaforretroactiveapplicationsetforthin X _Witt_Ԁv.State,387So.2d922(Fla.1980).RingissuedfromtheUnitedStates ,| SupremeCourt._Witt_,387So.2dat930.RingsSixthAmendmentrule P unquestionably isconstitutionalinnature._Witt_,387So.2dat931.Ring t  constitutesadevelopmentoffundamentalsignificance._Witt_,387So.2dat931.     Astowhat constitutesadevelopmentoffundamentalsignificance,_Witt_ "  explainsthatthiscategoryincludes changesoflawwhichareofsufficient $0  magnitudetonecessitateretroactiveapplicationasascertainedbythethreefold 'T"  testof_Stovall_Ԁ[v._Denno_,388U.S.293(1967),]and_Linkletter_Ԁ[v.Walker,381 ()x$" U.S.618(1965)],addingthat Gideonv.Wainwright...istheprimeexampleof L+&$ alawchangeincludedwithinthiscategory.387So.2dat929.TheMissouri  SupremeCourthasheldthatRingisretroactiveunderthe_Stovall_/_Linkletter_test. $ Statev._Whitfield_,107S.W.3d253(Mo.2003). H   TheruleofRingisthekindof sweepingchangeoflawdescribedin_Witt_.  l ChiefJustice_Anstead_ԀopinedthatRing isclearlythemostsignificantdeath @  penaltydecisionoftheU.S.SupremeCourtsincethedecisionin_Furman_Ԁv. d  Georgia,_Bottoson_Ԁv.Moore,833So.2d693,703(Fla.2002)(_Anstead_,C.J.,   concurringinresultonly),andJustice_Pariente_ԀdescribedRingasa landmark  case._Bottoson_Ԁv.Moore,824So.2d115,116(Fla.2002)(_Pariente_,J.,   concurring).JusticeShawconcludedthatRingappliesretroactivelyunder_Witt_ D andmeetsthetestof_Stovall_Ԁv._Denno_forretroactiveapplication._Bottoson_,833 h So.2dat717&n.49(Shaw,J.,concurringinresultonly). <   In_Witt_,thisCourtexplainedthatthedoctrineoffinalitymustgiveway ` whenfairnessrequiresretroactiveapplication:   ` Thedoctrineoffinalityshouldbeabridgedonlywhenamore " compellingobjectiveappears,suchasensuringfairnessand #  uniformityinindividualadjudications.Thus,societyrecognizesthat $  asweepingchangeoflawcansodrasticallyalterthesubstantiveor %.! proceduralunderpinningsofafinalconvictionandsentencethatthe &@"  machineryofpostconvictionreliefisnecessarytoavoidindividual (R#! instancesofobviousinjustice.Considerationsoffairnessand )d$" uniformitymakeitvery difficulttojustifydeprivingapersonofhis &*v%# libertyorhislife,underprocessnolongerconsideredacceptableand 8+&$ nolongerappliedtoindistinguishablecases.  ` _Witt_,387So.2dat925(footnoteomitted). $   Ringmeetsthe_Witt_test.First,thepurposeoftheruleistochangethevery H identityofthe_decisionmaker_Ԁwithrespecttocriticalissuesoffactthataredecisive  l oflifeordeath.Thischangeremediesa structuraldefect[]intheconstitutionof @  thetrialmechanism,byvindicating thejuryguarantee...[as]abasic d  _protectio[n_]whosepreciseeffectsareunmeasurable,butwithoutwhichacriminal   trialcannotreliablyserveitsfunction.Sullivanv.Louisiana,508U.S.275,281  (1993).Whenacapitaldefendanthasbeensubjectedtoasentencingproceeding   inwhichthejuryhasnotparticipatedinthelifeordeath_factfinding_Ԁrolerequired D bytheSixthAmendmentandRing,theconstitutionallyrequiredtribunalwas h simplynotallthere,aradicaldefectwhichnecessarily _cast[s_]seriousdoubton < theveracityorintegrityofthe...trialproceeding._Witt_,387So.2dat929. `   Second, thejurytrialprovisionsintheFederalandStateConstitutions   reflectafundamentaldecisionabouttheexerciseofofficialpower.Duncanv. " Louisiana,391U.S.145,156(1968).Inadvertentlybutnonethelessharmfully,the $  UnitedStatesSupremeCourtlapsedforatimeandenfeebledtheinstitutionofthe &@"  jurythroughitsrulingsin_Hildwin_Ԁv.Florida,490U.S.638(1989),andWaltonv. )d$" Arizona.TheCourtsretrenchmentrestoredtherighttojurytrialasa 8+&$  fundamentalguaranteeoftheFederalandFloridaConstitutions.    ThisCourthasconsistentlyaddressedSixthAmendmentclaimspremised $ upon_Apprendi_andRingonthemeritsinpostconvictioncases._   13      _ԀInPorterv. H Moore,27Fla.L.WeeklyS606(Fla.June20,2002),thisCourtcitedthedecision  l inthesuccessivehabeascaseofMillsv.Mooreforthepropositionthattheclaim @  was _meritless_.Initsrulings,theCourthasrejectedtheStatesargumentsthat d  suchclaimsmaybeprocedurallybarred.Theresultingmeritsrulingsimplicitly   recognizethatRingappliesretroactivelyunder_Witt_.   14        @& CLAIMII  INLIGHTOFWIGGINSV.SMITH,THISCOURTSHOULD ( REVISITITSDENIALOF_MR_._TOMPKINS_PENALTY < PHASEINEFFECTIVEASSISTANCEOFCOUNSELCLAIM.   P   InhisfirstRule3.850motion,Mr._Tompkins_Ԁpresentedaclaimthattrial & v counselprovidedineffectiveassistanceinfailingtoinvestigateandpresent J  evidenceofmitigationatthepenaltyphase.Thecircuitcourtheldanevidentiary n  hearingontheclaimanddeterminedthattrialcounselsperformanceregardingthe   penaltyphasewasdeficient,findingthatcounsel"failedtoinvestigate,prepare,  andpresentmitigationevidence.Itwasadeficientperformance.Theactsand * omissionswerespecifiedandfelloutsidethewiderangeofprofessionally N competentassistance"(1PCR.471).However,thecourtconcludedthatMr. "r _Tompkins_Ԁhadnotestablished areasonableprobabilitythatbutforthecounsels F errors,theresultsinthesentencingphasewouldhavebeendifferent,giventhe j 12/0verdict,giventheegregiousnatureoftheoffense,giventhetwoprior   rapes._&   15      _Ԁ "   Onappeal,thisCourtagreedthattrialcounselsperformanceregardingthe  penaltyphasewasdeficient._Tompkins_Ԁv._Dugger_,549So.2d1370,1373(Fla. $ 1989).ThequestionbeforethisCourtwaswhethertherecordestablishedthatMr. H _Tompkins_Ԁwasprejudiced._Strickland_Ԁv.Washington,466U.S.668(1984).This  l CourtconcludedthatMr._Tompkins_Ԁhadnotestablishedprejudice,reasoning: @  Thetrialjudge,whenimposingthedeathpenalty,foundthree d  aggravatingcircumstances:previousconvictionofaviolentfelony; v  murdercommittedduringanattempttocommitasexualbattery;and   thatthemurderwasespeciallyheinous,atrocious,orcruel.The   previousfelonyconvictionsconsistedoftwopriorrapesatknife  point._Tompkins_Ԁallegesthattherewereextenuatingcircumstances  whichwouldmitigatingthisaggravatingfactor.Hefurthersubmits   thatadditionalmitigatingevidenceexistedandshouldhavebeen 2 presentedattrial.Thismitigationincludedanabusedchildhoodand D anaddictiontodrugsandalcohol.Thetrialcourtfoundthatthis V evidencewouldnothaveaffectedthepenaltyinlightofthecrimeand h thenatureoftheaggravatingcircumstances.Weaffirmthetrial *z courtsfindingthatthesecondprongofthe_Strickland_testhasnot < beensatisfied. N Id.(footnotesomitted)._'   16      _Ԁ r   ThisCourtsdecisionaffirmingthedenialofMr._Tompkins_claimthathe ! receivedineffectiveassistanceatthepenaltyproceedingsisinerrorinlightofthe  recentdecisionbytheSupremeCourtinWigginsv.Smith,123_S.Ct_.2527(2003). $ AccordingtoWiggins,evaluationoftheprejudiceresultingfromdeficient H performancerequiresaparticularmethodology. First ,todetermineprejudice  l fromtheunreasonablefailuretoinvestigateandpresentmitigatingevidence, we L  _reweigh_Ԁtheevidenceinaggravationagainstthe totality ofavailablemitigating p  evidence.Wiggins,123_S.Ct_Ԁat2542(emphasisadded);seealsoWilliamsv.   Taylor,120_S.Ct_Ԁ1495,1515(2000)(courtisrequiredtoconductan assessment  ofthetotalityoftheomittedevidenceandthento evaluatethetotalityofthe 8 availablemitigationevidence! both thatadducedattrial, and theevidence  \ adducedinthehabeasproceeding)(emphasisadded).If theavailablemitigating < evidence,takenasawhole,mightwellhaveinfluencedthejurysappraisalof ` [thedefendants]moralculpability,Wiggins,123_S.Ct_.at2544(quoting  Williams,120_S.Ct_.at1515),prejudicehasbeenshown. Second ,theavailable   mitigationcreates areasonableprobabilitywhenenough jurorscouldhave "( struckadifferentbalanceandalteredthesentencingrecommendation.Id. Third , %X  everydefendanthas aright!indeedaconstitutionallyprotectedright!toprovide 8'"  thejurywiththemitigatingevidencethathistrialcounseleitherfailedtodiscover \)$" orfailedtooffer,Williams,120_S.Ct_.at1513,regardlessofthestrengthofthe +&$ statescase,theheinousnatureoftheoffense,ortheseverityofthe_aggravators_.  Williams,120_S.Ct_.at1515. Fourth ,forafacttobemitigatingitdoesnothaveto $ berelevanttothecrime!anyof thediversefrailtiesofhumankind,Woodsonv.  T NorthCarolina,428U.S.280,304(1976),whichmightcounselinfavorofa ( x sentencelessthandeath,_Lockett_Ԁv.Ohio,438U.S.586(1978),aremitigating. L  Williams,120_S.Ct_Ԁat1516. p    ThisCourtdidnotfollowthesestandardsinevaluatingtheprejudice   componentofMr._Tompkins_claim.Atthepenaltyphase,trialcounsel  establishedMr._Tompkins_'age,whichthecourtfoundwasmitigating,and , presentedbrieftestimonycoveringseventranscriptpagesthatMr._Tompkins_Ԁwas P agoodfamilymemberandgoodemployee_(R_.43238).Judge_Coe_Ԁfoundthese $t circumstances"didnotrisetoasufficientleveltobeweighedasamitigating H circumstance."_Tompkins_Ԁv.State,502So.2d415,421(Fla.1986).Although l availablebut_uninvestigated_,thefactsconcerningMr._Tompkins_'background,   whichestablishedabrutallydeprivedlife,deprivationofmaternalloveand " affection,sexualabusebyfosterparents,parentalneglect,headinjuries,brain $(  damageandpsychologicaldisabilitieswerenotheardandconsideredbythejury. &L"  Counselalsofailedtoobtaintheassistanceofamentalhealthexpertandfailedto  )p$" investigatetheaggravation.Thus,thejury'srecommendationwasnotbasedupon D+&$ thekindofindividualizedsentencingrequiredbytheEighthAmendment.    SomemembersofMr._Tompkins_'familytestifiedatthepostconviction $ evidentiaryhearing;affidavitsofotherswerestipulatedintoevidence(1PCR. H 288,291,294,296).TheStatefurtherstipulatedtothecredibilityoftheaffidavits  l (1PCR.29495),andagreedthatthefamilymemberswouldhavebeenavailable @  ifcounselhadcontactedthem(1PCR.297).Thecourtalso _accept[ed_]themas d  crediblefamilymembersandIacceptthatthey,_unimpeached_,aregoingtosayas   theiraffidavitstates(1PCR.296).    ThefamilymembertestimonyandaffidavitsestablishedthatMr._Tompkins_   wasavictimofseverechildabuseandchildhooddeprivation._    17      _ԀMr._Tompkins_ D wasthesixthofelevenchildrenborntoGladysand_Thurman_Ԁ_Tompkins_.Thefifth h andseventhchildrenbothdiedasinfants.WhileWaynewasaninfant,thefamily < movedtoFloridafromKentuckyinhopesthat_Thurman_Ԁcouldfindwork. ` Although_Thurman_Ԁworkeddoubleshiftsatanorangepackinghouseandlaterata   dairy,thefamilyfinanceswereprecarious.Gladystookthemoney_Thurman_ " broughthome,boughtsomegroceriesanddisappearedwiththerestofthemoney.  GladysandhersisterDaisyspentmostofthedayawayfromthehouse,only $ returningshortlybefore_Thurman_Ԁcamehomefromwork.Gladysconsumedan H alarmingamountofalcoholwhileshedreamedofalifefreeofchildren,ahusband  l andfinancialwoes.Sometimesshedidnotcomehomefortwoorthreeweeks. @  OldersisterstookcareofMr._Tompkins_Ԁandtheotheryoungerchildren._Thurman_ d  wasalovingfather,butGladyswouldnotallowhimtobephysicallyaffectionate   withthechildren.Wantinga"chancetospreadmywings"withoutherfamily  concernsinterfering,Gladysbecameviciouslyabusivetoherchildren._Thurman_   decidedtoleaveGladysandheadforKentucky.HeplannedtotakeWayneand D hissistersRoseandCarmanwithhim,butGladysattemptedtoprevent_Thurman_ h fromleaving.ThisresultedinawildcarchaseacrossTampa.Gladysevendrewa < gunwiththeintentionsofkilling_Thurman_Ԁ(_Exhs_.12,13,14,18,1PCR.17174). `   TheextensiveabsenceandabusebybothparentsresultedinWayne,twoof   hissistersandabrotherbeingremovedfromthehome.Thelegalproceedingsto " removeWayneandhissiblingsfromtheirparentstookonahorrifyingcharacter $  whenhismother_kidnapped_ԀWaynetopreventhimfrombeingtakenaway.The &@"  policediscoveredherhideout,however,surroundedthehouse,andviolently )d$" rippedWaynefromhismother'sarms(_Exhs_.12,13,14,18).Childwelfare 8+&$ recordsrevealedthatWayneandhissiblingswere"grosslyneglectedbyboth  parents,emotionallyaswellasphysically"(_Exh_.10).A1967psychiatric $ evaluationrevealedthatWaynelovedhismother"inspiteofherluridreputation," H that"[_h]e_Ԁweptduringmostoftheinterviewandthetearswereverybitterand  l hard,"thathe"isextremelydepressed"andthat"[_h]e_Ԁhasmoreorlessidentified @  withhismother'sparanoidviewofthevestedinterestsoflawandorder,sohewill d  havetobehandledwithpatienceandfirmness"(Id.).     Wayneeventuallywoundupinfostercare.Familymembersreportthat  Waynewasabused,bothphysicallyandsexually,byhisfosterparents(_Exhs_.12,   13,17).Thefosterparents,Mr.andMrs.Calhoun,providedtheirnaturalchildren D withthebestpossiblecarewhiledeprivingWayneofthemostbasicnecessities. h Mr.CalhounviolentlybeatWaynewithhisfistsandwhippedhimforinsignificant < infractions.FosterhomerecordsindicatesuspiciousproblemsbetweenWayne ` andthe_Calhouns_Ԁ(See_Exh_.10),corroboratingfamilyreportsthatMr.Calhoun   sexuallyabusedbothyounggirlsandboys. "   Waynetoldtwoofhisoldersistersabouttheabuse,andtheytriedtoget $  himandtheotheryoungchildrenoutoffostercare.Thetwosistersbegged &@"  Gladystogotocourtandaskthereturnofherchildren.Thetwosistersplanned )d$" totakeWayneandtheotherchildrenintotheirhomes.However,whenGladys 8+&$ wenttocourt,shetoldthejudgeshecouldnotcareforthechildren,andsothey  remainedinfostercare.Onedaywhenhewasaboutsixteen,Wayneranaway $ fromthefosterhomeandwenttohissisterDeborahshouse.Hesaidthefoster H fatherhadsexuallyattackedhim,buthehadfoughtofftheattackandwasnot  l goingbacktothefosterfamily(1PCR.15253,17879).Waynestayedwithhis @  sisterandbeganworkingforhisbrotherinlawasaroofer.Waynedidnotreturn d  toschool(_Exh_.16).     WhileonaroofingassignmentinFt.Pierce,Mr._Tompkins_Ԁwasstruckby  lightning.WhileMr._Tompkins_Ԁwastalkingonthephone,lightningstruckthe   telephonelineand,followingatremendousexplosionandabrilliantflashoflight, D Mr._Tompkins_Ԁwashurledacrosstheroom,unconscious.Hewasrushedtothe h hospital,headthrobbingwithpain,andtreated.Afterthisincident,Mr._Tompkins_ < losthisabilitytoconcentrateonhiswork.Onnumerousoccasions,hebacked ` himselfoffaroofandsometimesendeduphospitalized.Hewasneverthesame   afterthelightningstrike.Hefelloffroofswhileworking,causingfurtherinjuryto " hishead,orwalkedrightintotrees.Hehadlapsesinconcentrationandspentalot $  oftimegoingtothehospitalbecauseofhisvariousaccidents(_Exhs_.14,20.). &@"  Ѐ  Sometimeafterthelightningstrike,Mr._Tompkins_ԀmovedtoTexas.He )d$" marriedandhadason.AftertheirreturntoFlorida,Mr._Tompkins_wife,likehis 8+&$ mother,grewboredwithherlife.Shepackedherbagsandtheirchildandmoved  toTexaswithapoliceofficer(_Exhs_.13,17). $   OnceagainMr._Tompkins_Ԁreturnedtotheroofingbusinessandeventually H metBarbara_DeCarr_,whowaseighteenyearsolderthanMr._Tompkins_Ԁanda  l singlemotheroffivechildren.Mr._Tompkins_ԀhopedtoprovideBarbara'schildren @  withthestablefatherfigurethattheyobviouslylacked,andheestablishedaclose d  relationshipwiththechildren.But,Barbara_DeCarr_'shomewasnotconduciveto   anormalfamilylife.Herdeviantlifestylewaswellknown.See_Exhs_.12,13,14,  16,17,18,19,20,21.BarbarausedMr._Tompkins_Ԁwhenshewasfinanciallyon   theskidsandrejectedhimwhenshewasabletofindanothermancapableof D offeringpleasuresshecouldnotfindinMr._Tompkins_.Hefounditnecessaryto h consumeunbelievableamountsofalcoholanddrugstocombatBarbara'ssexual < perversionandpromiscuity.Mr._Tompkins_Ԁcontinuedtoliveinthisdestructive ` environmentbecauseofhisdesireandneedtoprovideBarbara'schildrenwiththe   stabilityandloveheneverhadhimself.Tragically,historywasrepeatingitself, " forMr._Tompkins_relationshipwithBarbaradeterioratedrapidlyandsooneerily $  resembledtherelationshiphehadwithhisownmother(_Exhs_.12,13,16,17). &@"    JailrecordsregardingMr._Tompkins_'incarcerationintheyearbeforehis )d$" capitaltrialindicatedthathereceivedmedicationforanxietyandthatjailmedical 8+&$ personnelbelievedheshouldreceiveamentalhealthevaluation.Theserecords  notedthatMr._Tompkins_Ԁ"[_a]dmitted_Ԁtohaving_prob[lems_Ԁwith]drinkinganddrug $ abuse.Wantshelpnow"(_Exh_.11).TherecordsalsonotedthatMr._Tompkins_' H thinkingwas"dominatedbycircumstantialeventsduringhisunhappychildhood:  l chronicalcoholicparents,raisedinfosterhomes"(Id.). @    Thereisnoquestionbutthatthebackgroundinformationthatcounseldid d  notpursuewouldhavebeenadmissibleasevidenceofmitigatingcircumstances.   Additionalhowever,thebackgroundinformationdemonstratedtheneedfora  thoroughneuropsychologicalevaluationofMr._Tompkins_.     Dr.PatriciaFleming,aqualified_neuropsychologist_,testifiedatthe1989 D hearingregardingherreviewofMr._Tompkins_'backgroundandherevaluationand h testing(1PCR.31857).Herprofessionallythoroughevaluationandtestimony < was_unrebutted_ԀandestablishedsignificantpenaltyphasedefenseswhichMr. ` _Tompkins_'sentencingjuryandjudgeneverheard.Dr.Flemingreviewed   extensivebackgroundmaterialsandspentsixhourswithMr._Tompkins_Ԁobtaining " abackgroundhistoryfromhimandconductingpsychologicaltesting,including $  theWechslerAdultIntelligenceScaleRevised(WAISR),varioustestsofsensory &@"  perceptualfunctioning,theBenderGestalt,theHalstead_Reitan_ )d$" NeuropsychologicalTestBattery,_Trailmaking_ԀPartsAandB,testsforlateral 8+&$ dominance,andScreeningforAphasia(1PCR.32627).    Dr.Flemingtestifiedthattheresultsofthepsychologicaltesting"fit"with $ Mr._Tompkins_'backgroundandhistory(1PCR.329).Mr._Tompkins_Ԁhasafull H scaleIQof79,whichputshimintheborderlinerangeofmentalfunctioning(1PC  l R.328).Hehasparticulardifficultyontestsrequiringabstractreasoningand @  judgment(Id.).OntheHalstead_Reitan_Ԁneurologicaltestbattery,Mr._Tompkins_ d  scoredanimpairmentindexof.57,ascoreconsistentwithpeoplewhohave   knownbraindamage(Id.).Hewasimpairedintestsrequiringjudgment,  reasoning,theabilitytoapplyfactstoeverydaycircumstances,finemotorskills,   quicknessofresponse,coordinationandtheabilitytoorganizefacts(1PCR.328 D 29).Dr.FlemingtestifiedthatthetestresultsshowedMr._Tompkins_Ԁis h  significantlyandseriouslyimpairedinhigherlevelsofbrainfunctioningand <  becomesconfusedeasily(1PCR.329).Hismostseriousdeficitswereonthe ` categorytest,i.e. themostsensitivetestofbraindamageinthebattery(Id.).Mr.   _Tompkins_impairmentswereconsistentwiththeheadandotherinjurieshehad " duringhislife(1PCR.329).AsDr.Fleminglearned,Mr._Tompkins_Ԁasachild $  oncedrankClorox,swallowedamarbleandturnedblue,drankgasoline,washit &@"  bylightning,felloffarooffourtimes,anddidpoorlyinschool(1PCR.330). )d$"   Dr.FlemingtestifiedthatMr._Tompkins_Ԁhadalsosufferedemotionaltrauma 8+&$ (1PCR.330).Hewastraumatizedbyhisfatherleavingthefamily,hismother  beingabsentagreatdealandbybeingneglectedasachild(Id.).Hewasalso $ traumatizedbybeingplacedinfostercareandbeingabusedbyhisfosterfamily H (1PCR.33031).Mr._Tompkins_Ԁsearchedforhisfatherforyearsandfinally  l foundhimin1982,butsixmonthslaterhisfatherwasshotandkilled(1PCR. @  331).Despitehismothersabuseandneglect,Mr._Tompkins_Ԁfeltagreat d  attachmenttoherandexcusesherbehavior(Id.).     Dr.FlemingdiagnosedMr._Tompkins_Ԁassufferingfromsubstanceabuse  disorder,organicbrainsyndrome,anddependentpersonalitydisorder(1PCR.   333).Inadditiontothesediagnoses,Dr.Flemingindicatedthatsubstantial D _nonstatutory_Ԁmitigatingcircumstancesexisted,includingabandonmentbythe h naturalparents,physicalandpsychologicalneglect,physicalabuse,sexualabuse, < cerebraldysfunction,borderlineintelligence,impairmentsinhigherlevel ` cognitivefunctioningandahistoryofvictimization(1PCR.33738).     Clearly,theevidenceavailablefromfamilymembers,recordsandamental " healthevaluationestablishedatleasteight_nonstatutory_Ԁmitigatingfactors.This $  informationwouldnotonlyhavehumanizedMr._Tompkins_Ԁintheeyesofthejury, &@"  butalsowouldhaveofferedanexplanationforhowhecametobebeforethejury )d$" andwouldhavereducedhismoralculpability.Asitwas,thejuryknewvirtually 8+&$ nothingaboutWayne_Tompkins_ԀexceptfortheportraitpaintedbytheState.    Thetrialjudgefoundonlythree_aggravators_Ԁandonestatutorymitigator.In $ additiontofailingtodiscoverandpresentmitigation,counselfailedtoattackthe H weightofthepreviousconvictionsbypresentingthevictim'sstatementtothe  l police.DuringthecourseoftheallegedrapethatwasusedbytheStateasan @  _aggravator_,thevictimwasgiggling,thankingMr._Tompkins_Ԁforremarkingthat d  shehad"aniceass,"toldhimthat"you[won't]getintotoomuchtroubleifyou   justtakemeback,"andacceptingmoneyfromMr._Tompkins_Ԁsoshecouldcallthe  policeafteraskinghimforarideback(1PCR.35356).Dr.Flemingtestifiedat   thepostconvictionhearingthatthecircumstancesofthisincidentwerefarfroma D "classicviolentrape"(1PCR.35657).Becausethejurydidnothearthesefacts, h whichwereadmissibleunderFloridalaw,_   18      _Ԁthejurydidnotpossesssignificant < evidencewhichwouldhavelessenedtheweightaccordedtothis_aggravator_. `   ThecircuitcourtandthisCourtonappealfoundnoprejudiceessentially   duetotheexistenceofthreeaggravatingfactors.Thisanalysisoverlooked " significantinformationnotknownbythejuryregardingtheweightofthe $  _aggravators_._   19      _ԀThefirst_aggravator_Ԁinvolvedthepriorsexualbattery;asnoted  above,however,substantialinformationexistedtolessentheweightofthat $ incident,informationwhichhastobetakenintoaccountinordertoperforma H properprejudiceanalysis.Withrespecttothesecond_aggravator_Ԁduringthe  l courseofasexualbatterytheonlyevidencetosupportthis_aggravator_Ԁcame,as @  thisCourtacknowledged,_Tompkins_,502So.2dat420,fromKathyStevensand d  Kenneth_Turco_,bothofwhomhadsubstantialcredibilityproblems._,   20      _Ԁ.See   _Tompkins_Ԁv.State,28Fla.L.WeeklyS767(Fla.Oct.9,2003).    Finally,astotheheinous,atrociousorcruel_aggravator_,thisCourt   determinedondirectappealthatastrangulationdeath isonetowhichthefactor D ofheinousnessisapplicable._Tompkins_,502So.2dat421.However,to h automaticallyapplyan_aggravator_Ԁtoaparticularcrime,withnoregardforthe < evidenceastothecrime,deprivesadefendantofanindividualizedassessmentof ` theaggravation.Inthiscase,themedicalexaminertestifiedthattheonlyevidence   thatthevictimhadbeenstrangledwasthepresenceofaligaturearoundtheneck " ofthedecayedcorpse;heacknowledgedthatitwasimpossibletodetermine  whethertheligaturewasplacedonthebodyafteritwasinthegraveorafterthe $ personhaddied,andbutfortheligature,itwouldhavebeenimpossibleto H determinethecauseofdeath_(R_.192).Moreover,theligaturecouldhavebeen  l usedtodragthebodytothe_gravesite_Ԁ_(R_.19394).Thehyoidbone,whichis"one @  ofthebonesthatyoulookfor"todetermineifstrangulationoccurred,was"intact" d  _(R_.193).Thesearesignificantfactswhichmustbeconsideredinanalyzingthe   prejudiceinthiscase,andwerenotconsideredbythisCourt.    Moreover,althoughacknowledginginpassingthatMr._Tompkins_Ԁhad   establishedmitigationthatwasnotinvestigatedbycounsel,thisCourtsanalysis D ofMr._Tompkins_claimwassilentastothecompellingnatureofboththefamily h background,whichtheStatestipulatedwascredibleandwhichthecircuitcourt < acceptedascredible,andthe_unrebutted_ԀmentalhealthmitigationadducedbyMr. ` _Tompkins_.Asexplainedabove,thisevidenceestablishedatleasteightsignificant   _nonstatutory_Ԁmitigatingfactors,buttheCourtsanalysisofprejudicedidnot " analyzetheimpactofthesefactors.Insteadofconsideringallofthemitigationas $  requiredinWiggins,thisCourtmerelylookedtotheaggravationpresentedattrial. &@"    BecausethisCourtreliedsolelyonthemereexistenceofaggravationand )d$" failedtodiscussthequalityofthe_unpresented_Ԁmitigationandofthe_unpresented_ 8+&$ rebuttaltotheaggravationintermsofunderminingconfidenceinthejury's  deliberativeprocess,thepriorprejudiceanalysiswasflawedunderWiggins..A $ properprejudiceanalysisentailsaconsiderationofthe totalityoftheevidence, H Wiggins,notsimplythemerefactthat_aggravators_ԀwerepresentedbytheState.  l  [_T]he_Ԁavailablemitigatingevidence,takenasawhole,mightwellhave @  influencedthejurysappraisalof[Mr._Tompkins_]moralculpability.Wiggins, d  123S.Ct.at2544,quotingWilliams,120S.Ct.at1515.     InlightoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtspronouncementsinWiggins,  thisCourtmustrevisititsdecisiontoaffirmthedenialofMr._Tompkins_penalty   phaseineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaim. D @& CLAIMIII h INLIGHTOFCRAWFORDV.WASHINGTON,THISCOURT @ SHOULDREVISITITSDIRECTAPPEALDENIALOF_MR_. T _TOMPKINS_CONFRONTATIONCLAUSECLAIM.  h   InthepenaltyphaseofMr._Tompkins_trial,theStatepresentedtestimony   fromtwolawenforcementofficersregardingMr._Tompkins_twopriorconvictions " _(R_.41931).ThefirstofficertestifiedthatheinvestigatedacaseinPascoCounty $&  inwhich [_t]he_Ԁclerkofthe[convenience]store,awhitefemale,wasabductedand &J"  takentoanothercountyandraped_(R_.420).TheofficeralsotestifiedthatMr. )n$" _Tompkins_Ԁappearedinalineup,and theclerkofthestoreidentifiedhimasbeing B+&$ thesubjectthatcommittedtheassaultagainsther_(R_.42021).Theofficer  answeredaffirmativelytotheprosecutorsfollowupquestion, Thatshehadbeen $ abductedatthestore,robbedatthestore,abductedandthenraped?_(R_.421). H   Defensecounselobjectedtothistestimony: Iwouldobjecttoanyhearsay  l statements,anydetailsgivenbythesewitnessesthattheywerenotpersonallya @  partyto_(R_.421).TheStatearguedthathearsaywasadmissibleatthepenalty d  phase_(R_.42122).Thecourtoverruledtheobjectionbutlimitedadditional   testimonypermittingofficertofurthertestifyaboutthelineupbecausetheofficer   waspresentatthelineup_(R_.422).Theofficeralsotestifiedtothedateofthe   offense_(R_.431). D   Thesecondofficertestifiedregardinganotherabductionandrapeofa h conveniencestoreclerkinPascoCounty_(R_.425).Whentheprosecutoraskedthe < officertodescribetheoffense,defensecounselobjected_(R_.426).Thecourt ` sustainedtheobjectioninpart,pointingoutthattestimonyastowhetherthevictim   was burned[]withcigaretteswouldbehearsay_(R_.42627).However,the " courtindicatedthattheprosecutorcouldaskwhether [Mr._Tompkins_]was $  accusedofandpledguiltytothe_kidnapping_Ԁandrapeofaconveniencestore &@"  clerk_(R_.427).Aftertheofficertestifiedtothedateofoffense,hewasasked )d$" whether thisoffensethatyouaredescribingwasaseparateincidentinvolvinga 8+&$ conveniencestoreclerkinwhichshewasabductedfromthestoreandraped?_(R_.  42829). $   Ondirectappeal,Mr._Tompkins_Ԁchallengedtheadmissionoftheofficers H testimonyasaviolationoftheConfrontationClause._Tompkins_Ԁv.State,502So.  l 2d415,41920(Fla.1986).Inaddressingthisclaim,theCourtnotedthathearsay @  isadmissibleataFloridacapitalpenaltyphase,thatthetrialcourtlimitedthe d  officerstestimonyandthatthefirstofficerwaspresentatthelineup.Id.The   CourtalsopointedoutthattheConfrontationClauseappliestothesentencing  process.Id.at420.WithoutspecificallydeterminingwhethertheConfrontation   Clausehadbeenviolated,theCourtthendeniedreliefontheclaim,findingany D errorharmlessbecausetheStateintroducedcertifiedcopiesofMr._Tompkins_ h convictionsinthosecases._   21      _ԀId. <   Despiteitsrelianceuponharmlesserror,theCourtsdenialofthisclaimon ` directappealresteduponamisapprehensionregardingthemeaningofhearsay   underthefederalConfrontationClause.Thatmisapprehensionisclearinlightof " theSupremeCourtsdecisioninCrawfordv.Washington,2004U.S.Lexis1838 $  (2004).InCrawford,theSupremeCourtexplained theoriginalmeaningofthe  ConfrontationClause.2004U.S.Lexis1838at*12.TheCourtconcluded, $  Leavingtheregulationofoutofcourtstatementstothelawofevidencewould H rendertheConfrontationClausepowerless.Id.at*2627.Thus,the  l ConfrontationClause appliestowitnessesagainsttheaccusedinotherwords, @  thosewhobeartestimony.Id.at*27.Thisdefinitionof expartetestimony d  encompasses [_s]tatements_Ԁtakenbypoliceofficers.Id.at*29.     ReviewingthehistoryoftheConfrontationClausealsoledtheSupreme  Courttoasecondconclusion: theFramerswouldnothaveallowedadmissionof   testimonialstatementsofawitnesswhodidnotappearattrialunlesshewas D unavailabletotestify,andthedefendanthad_had_Ԁaprioropportunityforcross h examination.Crawford,2004U.S.Lexis1838at*31.Thisistheonlyexception < totheConfrontationClause,andthereareno openendedexceptionsfromthe ` confrontationrequirementtobedevelopedbythecourts.Id.     TheSupremeCourtconcludedthatthehearsayexceptionsandthe " trustworthinesstestdescribedinOhiov.Roberts,448U.S.56(1980), depart[] $  fromthehistoricalprinciplesidentifiedabovebecauseRobertswasboth too &@"  broadand toonarrow.Crawford,2004U.S.Lexis1838at*39.Inits too )d$" narrowapplicationwhichisrelevanttoMr._Tompkins_casetheRobertstest 8+&$  admitsstatementsthatdoconsistofexpartetestimonyuponamerefindingof  reliability.Thismalleablestandardoftenfailstoprotectagainstparadigmatic $ confrontationviolations.Id.(emphasisinoriginal).Thus,theCourtheldthat H whenaStateadmitsanoutofcourttestimonialstatementagainstacriminal  l defendantandthedefendanthasnoopportunitytocrossexaminethewit