WPC 0{cv,,q*$"pd6.%hc:!6G/ WV 624^&|'(nFA.IIUOab"/ ^gEZ8(f+ "jDADC @W#03}oSiaXu -2b:Jsؓ Py?h _y+=\䍓a$'Wx.SҀT$ȏ:y|z|nxpg-~3؋1'#5=^A#d+mꯜ{ǎ + ˜0-hr'I1P޸Jn<+R \&#=I*/}iEn Es/Ҍdo8|k\Oq6M">l"uD&$^%#eE`;v, S^G9&^mxex5~#!U$N %S 0(YU5FUF` UFm^  0 l 0D+w@o4 m}!(,3U 8u<UF<UN<A=]?,DUFLMUFTCUYW%AYfZUF&\Cl\ ^`8rtUFu` vUFxxUFzUF({n{"UF Q; UFǜ UF8UF6UF:NBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBEDDDDD  F 0=QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ BLexmark X6100 SeriesPX,..,PX0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular.Courier New Regular V  $    6    _X.XXXOfcourse,thisargumentoverlooksthesimplefactthat  thisCourthasaddressedthemeritsRingclaimsinnumerous  capitalcasesinacollateralpostureandnotappliedaproceduralbarbaseduponthefailuretoraisetheissueattrialorondirectappeal.OutofthemultitudeofcasesthatthisCourthasheardregardingRing,Respondentisunabletofindone . singlecasetociteinsupportofitsargument.<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular0((3$ !      0  (#$  0   DDEDDD%SV-:i+003|xU   $    14    _X.XXXInothercontexts,thisCourthasadmittedfailuresto  properlyunderstandandfollowSupremeCourtprecedentinlight   ofsubsequentexplanations.Guzmanv.State,868So.2d498  (2003);Stephensv.State,748So.2d1028(Fla.1999). s  $    15    _X.XXXJustastheFourthCircuitmisapplied_Strickland_asthe  CourtinWigginsfound,theEleventhCircuitsanalysisis  subjecttothesameattack.However,itisnotforthisCourttoreviewanEleventhCircuitdecision.TheissuebeforethisCourtisnotwhattheEleventhCircuitdidordidnotdo.TheissueiswhetherthisCourtsanalysiscomportedwithwhattheSixthAmendmentrequiresasexplainedinWiggins.   $    8    _X.XXXRespondentstates, _Tompkins_Ԁmaynotpermissiblypresent  hisRingclaimnowtothecircuitcourtpursuanttoRule3.851  becausesubsection(d)(1)providesaoneyeartimelimitationtopresenttheclaimandunder(d)(2)(B)_Tompkins_Ԁwouldhavetoallegethatthefundamentalconstitutionalrightassertedwasnotestablishedwithintheperiodprovidedforinsubdivision(d)(1)andhasbeenheldtoapplyretroactively.Responseat4.Respondentthenasserts, _Tompkins_ԀhadatmostoneyearafterJune24,2002thedaytheRingdecisionissuedtopresent `  hisclaim.Responseat5.Ofcourse,acollateralappealwaspendinginthisCourttheentiretyofthetimefollowingthedecisioninRing,therebydeprivingthecircuitcourtof  2  jurisdictiontohearaRule3.851challenge.  ThepositionRespondenttakeshereiscompletelyatoddswiththepositiontakeninMr._Tompkins_appealin_Tompkins_Ԁv. d  State,_FSC_ԀCaseNo.SC031902.There,initsAnswerBrief,the :  Stateacknowledgedthat trialcourtslackjurisdictiontoentertain_postconviction_Ԁmotionswhendirectappealsorprior_postconviction_Ԁmotionsarependingreviewintheappellatecourts.AnswerBrief,CaseNo.SC031902,at9.   $    10    _X.XXXMoreover,ifthisCourtdecidestochangethestandardthat  hasgovernedforovertwentyyears,dueprocessrequiresthatthepartiesbegivennoticeandanopportunitytoheard.X.XXX. An \ essentialprincipleofdueprocessisthatadeprivationoflife,libertyorpropertybeprecededbynoticeandopportunityforhearingappropriatetothenatureofthecase.ClevelandBd.of . Ed.v._Loudermill_,470U.S.532,542(1985),quoting_Mullane_Ԁv.   CentralHanoverBank&TrustCo.,339U.S.306,313(1950).    [_F]undamental_ԀfairnessisthehallmarkoftheproceduralprotectionsaffordedbytheDueProcessClause.Fordv. 6   Wainwright,477U.S.399,424(1986)(Powell,J.,concurringin  \  partandconcurringinthejudgment).#X.XXX.;#X.XXX.Ԁ#X.XXX.#Ԁ   $    9    _X.XXX_Witt_Ԁv.Statewasalsorecognizedasprovidingthe  controllingstandardinReedv.State,837So.2d366(2002).  Moreover,thedistrictcourtsregularlyapplyandfollow_Witt_Ԁv. \ State.Hughesv.State,826So.2d1070(1stDCA2002);Jackson 2 v.State,849So.2d321(2ndDCA2003);_Battie_Ԁv.Singletary, X 791So.2d1261(3rdDCA2001);_Figarola_Ԁv.State,841So.2d576 . (4thDCA2003);Wilsonv.State,812So.2d452(5thDCA2002).     Abandoning_Witt_willresultingreatjudicialupheaval.   Courtswillhavetorevisitissuesofretroactivitypreviouslyresolvedunder_Witt_todetermineifadifferentconclusionis 6   reachedundersomenewstandard.Evenifspecificpetitionerswholostunder_Witt_areprecludedfromreraisingtheirclaims,  2  otherclaimantswillbeentitledtohavetheirclaimsresolvedunderthenewstandardeveniftheirclaimsareotherwiseidenticaltoclaimspreviouslyfoundnottoberetroactiveunder_Witt_.Ofcourse,ifdifferentresultswillnotoccurwhena :  differenttestisapplied,whatisthepointinchangingtests?   $    1    _X.XXXTherearetwocasescitedbyRespondent:_McGregor_Ԁv.  State,789So.2d976(Fla.2001),andBarnesv.State,794So.  2d590(Fla.2001).ThesenoncapitalcasesdonotconcernclaimspremiseduponthedecisioninRingv.Arizona,butrather 2 uponthedecisionin_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,530U.S.466(2000). X In_McGregor_,aquestionofgreatpublicimportancewascertified . tothisCourtinadirectappeal.ThisCourtnotedthattheissuehadnotbeenpreservedattrial.However,thisCourtthenproceededtoaddressthemerits,saying, [_i]n_Ԁourview,_Apprendi_ `  didnotoverruletheSupremeCourtspreviousdecisionin_McMillan_Ԁv.Pennsylvania,477U.S.79(1986)._McGregor_,789So.  \  2dat977.Theopinionconcluded, [_w]e_Ԁholdthat_Apprendi_does  2  notrequirethatthepetitionersreleasebeprovedtoajurybeyondareasonabledoubt.Id.,at978.ThisCourtdidnot   procedurallybartheissue,butinsteaddecideditonthemerits. d   InBarnesv.State,theidenticalcircumstancesoccurred.In  addressingacertifiedquestionofgreatpublicimportance,thisCourtnotedafailuretoraisetheissueattrial.Yet,thisCourtreachedthemerits,concluding, [_w]e_Ԁholdthat_Apprendi_ 2 doesnotrequirethatthepetitionersreleasebeprovedtoajurybeyondareasonabledoubt.Barnes,794So.at592.#XWXXX.S#X.XXXW<4 9Z+ Courier New <Q 9Z .Courier New Regular(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular   $    7    _X.XXXX.XXX.RespondentalsocitespreviousSupremeCourtcases   upholdingFloridascapitalsentencing.(Responseat34,citing,interalia,_Hildwin_Ԁv.Florida,490U.S.638(1989); \  _Spaziano_Ԁv.Florida,468U.S.447(1984)).#X.XXX.r#   $    2    _X.XXXSeeAndersonv.State,863So.2d169(Fla.2003);Owenv.  State,862So.2d687(Fla.2003);Davisv.State,859So.2d  465,480(Fla.2003);_Duest_Ԁv.State,855So.2d33,39(Fla. \ 2003);_Belcher_Ԁv.State,851So.2d678,685(Fla.2003); 2 Caballerov.State,851So.2d655,663(Fla.2003);_Blackwelder_ X v.State,851So.2d650,65354(Fla.2003);Lawrencev.State, . 846So.2d440,451(Fla.2003);Lugov.State,845So.2d74,   119n.79(Fla.2003);_Kormondy_Ԁv.State,845So.2d41,54(Fla.   2003);Andersonv.State,841So.2d390,40809(Fla.2003);Cox `  v.State,819So.2d705,72425(Fla.2002);_Hurst_Ԁv.State,819 6   So.2d689,70203(Fla.2002).   $    1    _X.XXXTherearetwocasescitedbyRespondent:_McGregor_Ԁv.  State,789So.2d976(Fla.2001),andBarnesv.State,794So.  2d590(Fla.2001).ThesenoncapitalcasesdonotconcernclaimspremiseduponthedecisioninRingv.Arizona,butrather 2 uponthedecisionin_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,530U.S.466(2000). X In_McGregor_,aquestionofgreatpublicimportancewascertified . tothisCourtinadirectappeal.ThisCourtnotedthattheissuehadnotbeenpreservedattrial.However,thisCourtthenproceededtoaddressthemerits,saying, [_i]n_Ԁourview,_Apprendi_ `  didnotoverruletheSupremeCourtspreviousdecisionin_McMillan_Ԁv.Pennsylvania,477U.S.79(1986)._McGregor_,789So.  \  2dat977.Theopinionconcluded, [_w]e_Ԁholdthat_Apprendi_does  2  notrequirethatthepetitionersreleasebeprovedtoajurybeyondareasonabledoubt.Id.,at978.ThisCourtdidnot   procedurallybartheissue,butinsteaddecideditonthemerits. d   InBarnesv.State,theidenticalcircumstancesoccurred.In  addressingacertifiedquestionofgreatpublicimportance,thisCourtnotedafailuretoraisetheissueattrial.Yet,thisCourtreachedthemerits,concluding, [_w]e_Ԁholdthat_Apprendi_ 2 doesnotrequirethatthepetitionersreleasebeprovedtoajurybeyondareasonabledoubt.Barnes,794So.at592.#XPXXX.S#X.XXXP<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    3    _X.XXXSeeRobinsonv.State,865So.1259S50(Fla.2004);  _Zakrzewski_Ԁv.State,866So.2d688(Fla.2003);CummingsElv.  State,863So.2d246(Fla.2003);Riverav.State,859So.2d \ 495,508(Fla.2003);Wrightv.State,857So.2d861,87778 2 (Fla.2003);Cooperv.State,856So.2d969,977_nn_.6&8(Fla. X 2003);Jonesv.State,855So.2d611,619(Fla.2003);_Fennie_Ԁv. . State,855So.2d597,607n.10(Fla.2003);Allenv.State,854   So.2d1255,1262(Fla.2003);Owenv.Crosby,854So.2d182,   193(Fla.2003);Chandlerv.State,848So.2d1031,1034n.4 `  (Fla.2003);Banksv.State,842So.2d788,793(Fla.2003); 6   Jonesv.State,845So.2d55,74(Fla.2003);Spencerv.State,  \  842So.2d52,72(Fla.2003);Lucasv.State,841So.2d380,  2  389(Fla.2003);Porterv.Crosby,840So.2d981,986(Fla.   2003);_Fotopoulos_Ԁv.State,838So.2d1122,1136(Fla.2002);   Brunov.Moore,838So.2d485,492(Fla.2002);Kingv.Moore, d  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);Millsv.Moore, 6 786So.2d532(Fla.2001).<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular 9  $    11    _X.XXXRespondentsargumentoverlooksthestatutorylanguage  requiringafindingof sufficientaggravatingcircumstancesexisttojustifytheimpositionofthedeathpenalty.ItalsooverlooksthejuryinstructiongiventoMr._Tompkins_jurydirectingittofirstdetermine whethersufficientaggravatingcircumstancesexisttojustifytheimpositionofthedeathpenalty(R.45253).   $    12    _X.XXXSpecifically,theindictmentprovided: WAYNE_TOMPKINS_,on  the24thdayofMarch,1983,...fromapremeditateddesigntoeffectthedeathofLISALEA_DeCARR_,ahumanbeing,didmurderthesaidLISALEA_DeCARR_Ԁbyasphyxiation(R.489).   $    13    _X.XXXTwentymonthselapsebetweenMarchof1983(thedateofthe  allegedcapitalcrime)andNovemberof1984(thedateofthe priorconvictions).   $    4    _$X.XXXSeeButlerv.State,842So.2d817,834(Fla.2003);Grim  v.State,841So.2d455,465(Fla.2003);_Doorbal_Ԁv.State,837  So.2d940,963(Fla.2003);Chavezv.State,832So.2d730,767 \ (Fla.2002).<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular 9  $    16    _X.XXXThisCourtdeniedMr._Tompkins_ineffectivenessclaim,  saying, [_t]he_Ԁtrialcourtfoundthisevidencewouldnothaveeffectedthepenaltyinlightofthecrimeandthenatureoftheaggravatingcircumstances._Tompkins_Ԁv._Dugger_,549So.2d1370, 2 t 1373(Fla.1989).   $    17    _X.XXXThisisofparticularconstitutionalsignificancewhere,as  here,thejudgewasstrippedofthepresumptionofimpartialityduetohisexpartecontactwiththeState.Smithv.State,708 \ So.2d253,255(Fla.1998)( weconcludethattheimpartialityofthetribunalwascompromisedandtheexpartecommunicationswereimproper).   $    18    _X.XXXCertainlyifthisCourtweretoabandonthe_Witt_testin  favorofthe_Teague_test,dueprocesswouldrequirenoticeanda  reasonableopportunitytobeheard.X.XXX. Anessentialprincipleof \ dueprocessisthatadeprivationoflife,libertyorpropertybeprecededbynoticeandopportunityforhearingappropriatetothenatureofthecase.ClevelandBd.ofEd.v._Loudermill_, . 470U.S.532,542(1985),quoting_Mullane_Ԁv.CentralHanoverBank   &TrustCo.,339U.S.306,313(1950).#X.XXX.#     Moreover,Mr._Tompkins_Ԁcaneasilyestablishthatunderthe_Teague_standard,Crawfordmustbeappliedretroactively.As 6   explainedbytheSupremeCourtinCrawford,theresultwas  \  dictatedbytheclearlanguageoftheSixthAmendment.AsCrawfordX.XXX.Ԁexplained, theFramerswouldnothaveallowedadmission   oftestimonialstatementsofawitnesswhodidnotappearattrialunlesshewasunavailabletotestify,andthedefendanthad_had_Ԁaprioropportunityforcrossexamination.Crawford,2004 :  U.S.LEXIS1838at*31.#X.XXX.6#TheSupremeCourtconcludedthatthe `  hearsayexceptionsandthetrustworthinesstestdescribedinOhio 6 v.Roberts,448U.S.56(1980), depart[]fromthehistorical   principlesidentifiedabovebecauseRobertswasboth toobroad  and toonarrow.Crawford,2004U.S.LEXIS1838at*39.X.XXX.ԀThus, h theresultinCrawfordwasdictatedbyprecedentexistingatthe > timeofMr._Tompkins_trialwhichwasignoredinRoberts.See d #X.XXX.r#X.XXX._Sprecht_Ԁv.Patterson,386U.S.605(1967)#X.XXX. #X.XXX..Thesituationis : analogoustothatwhichresultedwhentheSupremeCourtoverturneditsdecisioninBoothv.Maryland,#X.XXX.> #482U.S.496  (1987),inPaynev.Tennessee,501U.S.808(1991).Following l Payne,reliefwasnotforthcomingforBootherrorthatoccurred B incapitalproceedingsconductedwhileBoothwasthelaw.X.XXX. h   Further,Crawfordinvolvesproceduralelementsessentialto > thefairnessoftheproceeding.Under_Teague_,bedrockprocedural  protectionsrequireretroactiveapplication.#X.XXX.- #Crawfordheldthat  whenaStateadmitsanoutofcourttestimonialstatementagainstacriminaldefendantandthedefendanthasnoopportunityto F ! g crossexaminethewitnesswhomadethestatementinfrontofthetrieroffact, [_t]hat_ԀaloneissufficienttomakeoutaviolationoftheSixthAmendmentbecause [_w]here_Ԁtestimonialstatementsareatissue,theonlyindicumofreliabilitysufficienttosatisfyconstitutionaldemandsistheonetheConstitutionactuallyprescribes:confrontation.Id.at*54.X.XXX.Ԁ .  Dispensingwithconfrontationbecausetestimonyisobviouslyreliableisakintodispensingwithjurytrialbecauseadefendantisobviouslyguilty.ThisisnotwhattheSixthAmendmentprescribes.Crawford,2004U.S.LEXIS1838at*43. 6   #X.XXX.#X.XXX.Itdoesnotgetmorebedrockthanthat.#X.XXX.|# .  $    19    _X.XXXX.XXX.CrawfordissuedfromtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt.  _Witt_,387So.2dat930.TheSixthAmendmentruleunquestionably   isconstitutionalinnature.Id.,at931.Crawford \  constitutesadevelopmentoffundamentalsignificance.Id.#X.XXX.v#  $    5    _*X.XXXSee_Marquard_Ԁv.State,850So.2d417,431n.12(Fla.  2002).<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular V  $    6    _,X.XXXOfcourse,thisargumentoverlooksthesimplefactthat  thisCourthasaddressedthemeritsRingclaimsinnumerous  capitalcasesinacollateralpostureandnotappliedaproceduralbarbaseduponthefailuretoraisetheissueattrialorondirectappeal.OutofthemultitudeofcasesthatthisCourthasheardregardingRing,Respondentisunabletofindone . singlecasetociteinsupportofitsargument.<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    7    _.X.XXX/X.XXX.RespondentalsocitespreviousSupremeCourtcases   upholdingFloridascapitalsentencing.(Responseat34,citing,interalia,_Hildwin_Ԁv.Florida,490U.S.638(1989); \  _Spaziano_Ԁv.Florida,468U.S.447(1984)).#.X.XXX.r#<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular   $    20    _X.XXXCrawfordmeetsthe_Witt_test.First,thepurposeofthe  ruleistoreturntotheintentoftheFramersandrestoretothelawthecorevaluesoftheConfrontationClause. Dispensingwithconfrontationbecausetestimonyisobviouslyreliableisakintodispensingwithjurytrialbecauseadefendantisobviouslyguilty.ThisisnotwhattheSixthAmendment .  prescribes.Crawford,2004U.S.LEXIS1838at*43.Itisa  radicaldefectintheprocessintendedbytheFramersthatnecessarily _cast[s_]seriousdoubtontheveracityorintegrityofthe...trialproceeding._Witt_,387So.2dat929. 2   Second, theFramerswouldnothaveallowedadmissionoftestimonialstatementsofawitnesswhodidnotappearattrialunlesshewasunavailabletotestify,andthedefendanthad_had_Ԁaprioropportunityforcrossexamination.Crawford,2004U.S.   LEXIS1838at*31.Inadvertentlybutnonethelessharmfully,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtlapsedforatimeandenfeebledtherightofconfrontationthroughitsrulingsinOhiov.Roberts.  \  TheCourtsretrenchmentrestoredtherighttojurytrialasa fundamentalguaranteeoftheUnitedStatesConstitution.Therefore,Crawfordshouldbeappliedretroactively.#XPXXX.W#   $    8    _2X.XXXRespondentstates, _Tompkins_Ԁmaynotpermissiblypresent  hisRingclaimnowtothecircuitcourtpursuanttoRule3.851  becausesubsection(d)(1)providesaoneyeartimelimitationtopresenttheclaimandunder(d)(2)(B)_Tompkins_Ԁwouldhavetoallegethatthefundamentalconstitutionalrightassertedwasnotestablishedwithintheperiodprovidedforinsubdivision(d)(1)andhasbeenheldtoapplyretroactively.Responseat4.Respondentthenasserts, _Tompkins_ԀhadatmostoneyearafterJune24,2002thedaytheRingdecisionissuedtopresent `  hisclaim.Responseat5.Ofcourse,acollateralappealwaspendinginthisCourttheentiretyofthetimefollowingthedecisioninRing,therebydeprivingthecircuitcourtof  2  jurisdictiontohearaRule3.851challenge.  ThepositionRespondenttakeshereiscompletelyatoddswiththepositiontakeninMr._Tompkins_appealin_Tompkins_Ԁv. d  State,_FSC_ԀCaseNo.SC031902.There,initsAnswerBrief,the :  Stateacknowledgedthat trialcourtslackjurisdictiontoentertain_postconviction_Ԁmotionswhendirectappealsorprior_postconviction_Ԁmotionsarependingreviewintheappellatecourts.AnswerBrief,CaseNo.SC031902,at9.<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    9    _6X.XXX_Witt_Ԁv.Statewasalsorecognizedasprovidingthe  controllingstandardinReedv.State,837So.2d366(2002).  Moreover,thedistrictcourtsregularlyapplyandfollow_Witt_Ԁv. \ State.Hughesv.State,826So.2d1070(1stDCA2002);Jackson 2 v.State,849So.2d321(2ndDCA2003);_Battie_Ԁv.Singletary, X 791So.2d1261(3rdDCA2001);_Figarola_Ԁv.State,841So.2d576 . (4thDCA2003);Wilsonv.State,812So.2d452(5thDCA2002).     Abandoning_Witt_willresultingreatjudicialupheaval.   Courtswillhavetorevisitissuesofretroactivitypreviouslyresolvedunder_Witt_todetermineifadifferentconclusionis 6   reachedundersomenewstandard.Evenifspecificpetitionerswholostunder_Witt_areprecludedfromreraisingtheirclaims,  2  otherclaimantswillbeentitledtohavetheirclaimsresolvedunderthenewstandardeveniftheirclaimsareotherwiseidenticaltoclaimspreviouslyfoundnottoberetroactiveunder_Witt_.Ofcourse,ifdifferentresultswillnotoccurwhena :  differenttestisapplied,whatisthepointinchangingtests?   $    2    _X.XXXSeeAndersonv.State,863So.2d169(Fla.2003);Owenv.  State,862So.2d687(Fla.2003);Davisv.State,859So.2d  465,480(Fla.2003);_Duest_Ԁv.State,855So.2d33,39(Fla. \ 2003);_Belcher_Ԁv.State,851So.2d678,685(Fla.2003); 2 Caballerov.State,851So.2d655,663(Fla.2003);_Blackwelder_ X v.State,851So.2d650,65354(Fla.2003);Lawrencev.State, . 846So.2d440,451(Fla.2003);Lugov.State,845So.2d74,   119n.79(Fla.2003);_Kormondy_Ԁv.State,845So.2d41,54(Fla.   2003);Andersonv.State,841So.2d390,40809(Fla.2003);Cox `  v.State,819So.2d705,72425(Fla.2002);_Hurst_Ԁv.State,819 6   So.2d689,70203(Fla.2002).   $    3    _X.XXXSeeRobinsonv.State,865So.1259S50(Fla.2004);  _Zakrzewski_Ԁv.State,866So.2d688(Fla.2003);CummingsElv.  State,863So.2d246(Fla.2003);Riverav.State,859So.2d \ 495,508(Fla.2003);Wrightv.State,857So.2d861,87778 2 (Fla.2003);Cooperv.State,856So.2d969,977_nn_.6&8(Fla. X 2003);Jonesv.State,855So.2d611,619(Fla.2003);_Fennie_Ԁv. . State,855So.2d597,607n.10(Fla.2003);Allenv.State,854   So.2d1255,1262(Fla.2003);Owenv.Crosby,854So.2d182,   193(Fla.2003);Chandlerv.State,848So.2d1031,1034n.4 `  (Fla.2003);Banksv.State,842So.2d788,793(Fla.2003); 6   Jonesv.State,845So.2d55,74(Fla.2003);Spencerv.State,  \  842So.2d52,72(Fla.2003);Lucasv.State,841So.2d380,  2  389(Fla.2003);Porterv.Crosby,840So.2d981,986(Fla.   2003);_Fotopoulos_Ԁv.State,838So.2d1122,1136(Fla.2002);   Brunov.Moore,838So.2d485,492(Fla.2002);Kingv.Moore, d  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);Millsv.Moore, 6 786So.2d532(Fla.2001).<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    10    _8X.XXXMoreover,ifthisCourtdecidestochangethestandardthat  hasgovernedforovertwentyyears,dueprocessrequiresthatthepartiesbegivennoticeandanopportunitytoheard.;X.XXX. An \ essentialprincipleofdueprocessisthatadeprivationoflife,libertyorpropertybeprecededbynoticeandopportunityforhearingappropriatetothenatureofthecase.ClevelandBd.of . Ed.v._Loudermill_,470U.S.532,542(1985),quoting_Mullane_Ԁv.   CentralHanoverBank&TrustCo.,339U.S.306,313(1950).    [_F]undamental_ԀfairnessisthehallmarkoftheproceduralprotectionsaffordedbytheDueProcessClause.Fordv. 6   Wainwright,477U.S.399,424(1986)(Powell,J.,concurringin  \  partandconcurringinthejudgment).#8X.XXX.;#;X.XXX.Ԁ#8X.XXX.ϖ#Ԁ<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    4    _X.XXXSeeButlerv.State,842So.2d817,834(Fla.2003);Grim  v.State,841So.2d455,465(Fla.2003);_Doorbal_Ԁv.State,837  So.2d940,963(Fla.2003);Chavezv.State,832So.2d730,767 \ (Fla.2002).  $    5    _X.XXXSee_Marquard_Ԁv.State,850So.2d417,431n.12(Fla.  2002).<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular   $    14    _CX.XXXInothercontexts,thisCourthasadmittedfailuresto  properlyunderstandandfollowUnitedStatesSupremeCourtprecedentinlightofsubsequentexplanations.Guzmanv.State, \ 868So.2d498(2003);Stephensv.State,748So.2d1028(Fla. 2 1999).<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular($0  d !  _ X.XXX@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFFLORIDA  @"CASENO.SC04519 ?}'4 pdE41p?  2 @hh#WAYNE_TOMPKINS_,0p x (#X0@*  Petitioner,E.` hp x (#XE@tt)v.@JAMESV.CROSBY,JR.,@` ` Secretary,FloridaDepartmentofCorrections,0p x (#X0@*  Respondent.E.` hp x (#XE ?}'4pdE4p?   @0 0 PETITIONERSREPLYTORESPONSETO@ PETITIONFORWRITOFHABEASCORPUS ?}'4pdE4p?   p    `     h   MARTINJ._MCCLAIN_   `     h   SpecialAssistant_CCRC_ x   k!    `     h   FloridaBarNo.0754773   `     h   141_N.E._Ԁ30thStreet 3!#    `     h   WiltonManors,FL33334   `     h   (305)9848344 #XPXXX..#X.XXXP   `     h   OFFICEOFTHECAPITALCOLLATERAL $ '    `     h   REGIONALCOUNSELSOUTH   `     h   101NE3rdAve.,Suite400   `     h   FortLauderdale,FL33301   `     h   (954)7131284#XPXXX.#X.XXXP S(#+    `     h   COUNSELFORPETITIONER  *k%-   +%'/  8.XXdXXd8#XPXXX. #X.XXXP@" ARGUMENTINREPLY   @HH' CLAIMI  D   Mr._Tompkins_spetitionpresentsissuesunderRingv. ( Arizona,122S.Ct.2428(2002),wheretheSupremeCourtheld l  thattheSixthAmendmentrequiresthataggravatingfactorsnecessaryforimpositionofthedeathpenaltymustbefoundbeyondareasonabledoubtbyajury.RespondentarguesthatMr._Tompkins_Ԁisnotentitledtoreliefbecausehisclaimsareprocedurallybarred,becauseRingdoesnotapplyretroactively, P  andbecauseMr._Tompkins_claimshavenomerit.Thisreplyaddresseseachofthesearguments. A.  MR._TOMPKINS_CLAIMSAREBEFORETHECOURTONTHEMERITS.   \   RespondentfirstarguesthatMr._Tompkins_claimsareprocedurallybarredbecausethoseclaimswerenotraisedinpreviousproceedings(Responseat3).RespondentcitesnoauthorityfromthisCourtapplyingaproceduralbartoaRing \ claiminacapitalcase._  #  1      _ @  _  ThisCourthasconsistentlyaddressedthemeritsofclaimsunderRing,withoutmentioningwhetherornottheclaimwas D raisedinpriorproceedings.ThishasbeentruewhethertheRing ( claimwaspresentedondirectappeal4  #  2      ׀orinpostconviction l  proceedings.5  #  3      ׀ThisCourthasconsideredthemeritsofclaims  P firstpresentedinamotionforrehearing9#  #  4      ׀ornoticeof  supplementalauthority.:)  #  5      ׀TosingleMr.Tompkinsoutfor D disparatetreatmentofhisRingclaimwouldbeanirregular ( and/orinconsistentapplicationofaproceduralbar.Mr.TompkinsclaimsareproperlybeforetheCourtandshouldbeaddressedonthemerits.#XPXXX.9 #X.XXXPԀ#XPXXX.G#X.XXXP    #XPXXX.#X.XXXP  RespondentalsocontendsthatMr.Tompkinsclaimsare (x  procedurallybarredbecauseissuesunderRingarenotnewor   novel: thetoolshavebeenavailableforthedefensetoconstructtheargument(Responseat3).RespondentarguesthatthebasisforanySixthAmendmentattackonFloridascapitalsentencingprocedureshasalwaysbeenavailabletoTompkins.\+\  #  6      ׀  \ WhilerecognizingaRinglikeclaimwasrejectedinProffittv.  Florida,428U.S.242(1976),RespondentcontendsthatMr. 4 Tompkinsshouldnonethelesshaveraisedtheclaimpreviously. -   #  7      ׀#XPXXX.#X.XXXP  TheStatesargumentisreallyanattempttoenvelopMr.Tompkinsinacatch22.PriortoRing,bindingSupremeCourtprecedent D haddeterminedthattheRingclaimwasmeritless.Therefore, ( knowledgeablecounselwouldrecognizesuchaclaimtobeforeclosed.However,now,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasrecognizedthatitspriordecisionswereerroneous.Thisispreciselythekindofsituationthat#XPXXX.#X.XXXPWittv.State,387So.2d (x  922(Fla.1980)#XPXXX.#X.XXXP,wasmeanttoaddress!asharpchangeinthelaw   thatnooneshouldbeheldtohaveanticipated.  RespondentalsoarguesthattheRingclaimsareprocedurally 4 barredbecausemorethanayearpassedbetweentheissuanceoftheRingopinionandthefilingofthepresenthabeaspetition.f1f  #  8      ׀  \ However,Respondentoverlookstheobviousfactthatfromthedate  ofthedecisioninRinguntilOctober9,2003,thecircuit  courtsordervacatingthesentenceofdeathwasinplace.Surely,whileanordervacatingasentenceofdeathisvalidlyinplace,thetimeforfilingchallengestothevacatedsentenceofdeathmustbetolled.  Moreover,thisCourtdidnotapplythistimebarinRobinson    v.State,865So.2dat126566.There,ahabeaspetitionwas (x  filedraisingRingclaimsonJanuary23,2004.Yet,thisCourt   addressedthemeritsofMr.Robinsonsclaims.  Finally,RespondentassertsthatMr.TompkinshasfiledhisRingclaimbecause TompkinsmaynotpermissiblyurgeaRing x claimpostconvictioninthelowercourtduetothetimelimitationrequirement.Responseat5.ThisassertionisbafflinggiventhatthecircuitcourtdoesnothaveandhasnothadjurisdictiontoentertainaRule3.851motionsinceJuly23,2001,thedayMr.Tompkinsfiledanoticeofappeal.SeeAnswer \ Brief,CaseNo.SC031902,at9.Surely,theoneyearclockcannotrunwhenthecourtlacksjurisdictiontoentertainapostconvictionmotion.#XPXXX.s#X.XXXP h #XPXXX.$#X.XXXP !h$  B.  RINGAPPLIESRETROACTIVELY.  "&   RespondentarguesthatRingdoesnotapplyretroactively @$( (Responseat616).Primarily,RespondentreliesuponthedecisionbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdiscussingtheavailabilityoffederalhabeasreliefinTeaguev.Lane,489U.S. (L$. 288(1989).There,theSupremeCourtdevisedaretroactivitytestforfederalhabeaspurposes.However,Teagueisnotthe $,t'2 controllinglawinFloridaastotheretroactiveapplicationofnewcourtdecisionsinstatecourts.In#XPXXX.D%#X.XXXPDelgadov.State,776 D So.2d233,241(Fla.2000),#XPXXX.(#X.XXXPԀthisCourtheldthatretroactivity ( analysisinFloridarequiredapplicationofthetestsetforthinWittv.State,387So.2d922,92831(Fla.1980).#XPXXX.(#X.XXXPԀInDelgado,  P thisCourtstated, Thisopinionwillnot,however,applyretroactivelytoconvictionsthathavebecomefinalbecausethecase doesnotmeetthesecondorthirdprongsof#XPXXX.)#X.XXXPWitt.   #XPXXX.*#X.XXXP  ThisCourtstillmorerecentlyreaffirmeditsadherenceto P  theWitttestinitsdecisioninStatev.Klayman,835So.2d 4 248,252(Fla.2002).3  #  9      ׀There,t#XPXXX.+#X.XXXPhisCourtexplained: x #XPXXX.,#X.XXXPAlthoughFloridacourtshavenotpreviouslyrecognized  \ theFiore[v.White,531U.S.225(2001),#XPXXX.J-#X.XXXP]#XPXXX..#X.XXXPԀdistinction & betweena clarificationand change,weconcludethatthisdistinctionisbeneficialtoouranalysisofFloridalaw.Previously,thisCourtanalyzedsuchcasesstrictlyunderWittv.State,387So.2d922 N (Fla.1980),andusedtheterm changebroadlytoincludewhatinfactwerebothclarificationsandtruechanges.AsexplainedinFiore,however,asimple \ clarificationinthelawdoesnotpresentanissueofretroactivityandthusdoesnotlenditselftoaWitt z analysis. WhereasWittremainsapplicableto changes D inthelaw ,Fioreisapplicableto clarificationsin ^ thelaw.Klayman,835So.2dat25253(emphasisadded)(footnotes l  omitted).#XPXXX.H.#X.XXXP7  #  10        P   AstotheWitttest,Respondentspendsoneshortparagraph    addressingthetest.However,thePetitionitselfdemonstratestheinadequacyofRespondentssuperficialargument. C.  THEPRIORVIOLENTFELONYAGGRAVATORDOESNOTSATISFYRING.  P    RespondentarguesthatMr.TompkinscasefallsoutsidethescopeofRingbecauseoneoftheaggravatingfactorsfoundbythe x judgeinvolvedpriorconvictionsofviolentfelonies(Responseat21)( ThepriorviolentfelonyaggravatorexemptscapitaldefendantsfromRing/Apprendi.).   #  11      ׀Respondents_argument 4 presupposesthatthepresenceofoneaggravatingcircumstanceisanelementofthecrimeofcapitalfirstdegreemurderandassumesthatthiselementispresentwheretheStateintroducesaconvictionforapriorviolentfelony.#XPXXX..2#X.XXXP  Inconstructingitsargument,Respondentignoreswhenthe  P  priorconvictionsoccurred.TheStateintroducedattrialtwo1984convictions:oneforrobbery,_kidnapping_Ԁandsexualbattery,andonefor_kidnapping_Ԁandsexualbattery.BothconvictionsoccurredinNovemberof1984.#XPXXX. 7#X.XXXPHowever,inthecapitalcase,Mr. P  _Tompkins_ԀwaschargedbyindictmentwithafirstdegreemurderallegedtohaveoccurredonMarch24,1983.!  #  12      ׀Theindictmentdid x notchargeMr._Tompkins_Ԁwithanyaccompanyingfelonies.#XPXXX.8#X.XXXPԀ  \   Iftheaggravatingcircumstanceapriorconvictionofaviolentfelony!isanelementoftheoffense,theStatefailstoaddressorexplainhowanelementofthecrimecancomeintoexistencetwenty(20)monthsafterthecrime."  #  13      ׀Atthetimeof \ theallegedcapitalcrime,Mr._Tompkins_Ԁhadnotbeenconvictedanddidnothave priorviolentfelonyconvictions.Totheextentthatthepriorviolentfelonyaggravatingcircumstanceisanelementoftheoffenseofcapitalfirstdegreemurder,theelementmustbepresentandexistonMarch24,1983,thedateset @$( forthintheindictmentasthedateonwhichthecapitaloffenseoccurred.  NoneofthecasesrelieduponbyRespondentaddressthesituationpresentheretheuseofsubsequentconvictionstoupgradetheoffense.AtthetimeofMr._Tompkins_capitalsentence,theseconvictionswereusedmerelyassentencingfactorsthatexistedpriortothesentencing.However,toqualifyasanelementoftheoffenseofcapitalfirstdegreemurder,thepriorsmustexistatthemomentoftheallegedcapitalcrime.@  & CLAIMII  4 #XPXXX.:#X.XXXP  RespondentcompletelymisunderstandsClaimIIofMr. x _Tompkins_shabeaspetition.RespondentseemstobelievethatMr._Tompkins_ԀisarguingthatWigginsv.Smith,539U.S.510(2003),  changed_Strickland_Ԁv.Washington,466U.S.668(1984).Tothe 4 contrary,WigginsdemonstratesthatthisCourtfailedto  understandandproperlyapply_Strickland_,justastheFourth \ CircuitCourtofAppealsinWigginsfailedtounderstandand @  properlyapply_Strickland_.#XPXXX.C@#X.XXXP "   Mr._Tompkins_argumentisthatWigginsis_Strickland_. !h$ AccordingtotheSupremeCourt,whatitsaidinWigginsiswhat "& itmeantin_Strickland_.Therefore,totheextentthatthis @$( Courts1989analysisofMr._Tompkins_claimofineffectiveassistanceofcounselatthepenaltyphasedoesnotcomportwithWiggins,itdidnotcomportwith_Strickland_.B  #  14       (L$.   Tellingly,RespondentspendslittletimedefendingthisCourts1989analysisofMr._Tompkins_ineffectivenessclaim.Instead,RespondentattemptstorelyupontheEleventhCircuitsopinionaffirmingthedenialoffederalhabeasrelief._<  #  15      _ԀItis l  asifRespondentisasleightofhandartist,usingabiglongdiscussionoftheEleventhCircuitsopinioninlieuofanyrealanalysisofthisCourtsopinionanditsnoncompliancewithWiggins.ContrarytothethrustofRespondentsillusion,this   CourtissupposedtobethecourtoffirstresortfordefendantstopresenttheirclaimsthattheStateofFloridahasdeprivedthemoftheirconstitutionalrights.Inthatrole,thisCourtisrequiredtoupholdtheconstitutionandinsurecompliancewithitsguaranteesasenunciatedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt.  ThisCourtdidnotconducttheanalysisrequiredbyWiggins. 4 ThisCourtdeferredentirelytoJudge_Coe_,ajudgewenowknowengagedinexpartecontactwiththeStateduringthesentencing \ proceedings._%   #  16      _ԀThisCourtfailedtoconductadenovo @  determination#XPXXX.C#X.XXXP.&f  #  17      #XPXXX.L#X.XXXPԀ    Wigginsexplainedthattheevaluationoftheprejudice D resultingfromdeficientperformancerequiresaparticularmethodology. First ,todetermineprejudicefromtheunreasonable l  failuretoinvestigateandpresentmitigatingevidence, we_reweigh_Ԁtheevidenceinaggravationagainstthe totality of    availablemitigatingevidence.Wiggins,123S.Ct.at2542 (x  (emphasisadded);seealsoWilliamsv.Taylor,120S.Ct.1495,   1515(2000)(courtisrequiredtoconductan assessmentofthetotalityoftheomittedevidenceandthento evaluatethetotalityoftheavailablemitigationevidence! both thatadduced x attrial, and theevidenceadducedinthehabeas  \ proceeding)(emphasisadded).If theavailablemitigatingevidence,takenasawhole,mightwellhaveinfluencedthejurysappraisalof[thedefendants]moralculpability,Wiggins,123S.Ct.at2544(quotingWilliams,120S.Ct.at1515), \ prejudicehasbeenshown. Second ,theavailablemitigation @  creates areasonableprobabilitywhenenough jurorscouldhave " struckadifferentbalanceandalteredthesentencingrecommendation.Id. Third ,everydefendanthas aright!indeed "& aconstitutionallyprotectedright!toprovidethejurywiththe @$( mitigatingevidencethathistrialcounseleitherfailedtodiscoverorfailedtooffer,Williams,120S.Ct.at1513, D regardlessofthestrengthofthestatescase,theheinousnatureoftheoffense,ortheseverityofthe_aggravators_.Williams,120S.Ct.at1515. Fourth ,forafacttobemitigating  P itdoesnothavetoberelevanttothecrime!anyof thediversefrailtiesofhumankind,Woodsonv.NorthCarolina,428U.S.280, (x  304(1976),whichmightcounselinfavorofasentencelessthandeath,_Lockett_Ԁv.Ohio,438U.S.586(1978),aremitigating. P  Williams,120S.Ct.at1516. 4   RespondentcompletelyignoresthesestandardsdiscussedinWigginsandWilliams,standardsthisCourtfailedtoemployin  \ evaluatingMr._Tompkins_ineffectivenessclaimin1989.#XPXXX.M#X.XXXPԀ  @& CLAIMIII 4    InordertogetaroundtherecentdecisioninCrawfordv.  Washington,124S.Ct.1354(2004),Respondentfirstarguesthat \ eventhoughthisCourtaddressedtheConfrontationClauseissueonthemeritsinMr._Tompkins_directappeal,thisCourtshouldnowapplyaproceduralbarbecauseattrialMr._Tompkins_counselobjectedthatthetestimonywashearsay.Ofcourse,RespondentspositionignoresthefactthatCrawfordoverturnedOhiov. @$( Roberts,448U.S.56(1980),preciselybecauseithadlinkedthe %$!* hearsayruletotheConfrontationClause,i.e.,ifthehearsaywasadmissibleunderahearsayexceptionthentheConfrontationClausewasnotviolated.UTherefore,underRoberts,atherulingonanobjection *%0 tohearsaydeterminedwhethertheConfrontationClausewas $,t'2 violated.;tThetwowerethesame.ThisCourtwascorrectondirectappealwhenitdecidedthemeritsoftheConfrontationClauseclaim.  RespondentsprincipleargumentastothisclaimishiscontentionthatCrawfordisnotretroactiveunder_Teague_Ԁv.Lane, l  489U.S.288(1989).AsnotedpreviouslyinthisReply,_Teague_  P isnotthestandardadoptedbythisCourtfordeterminingretroactivity._'  #  18      _ԀNotonceinaddressingthisclaimdoes (x  RespondentevencitethecasewhereinthisCourtadoptedthecontrollingtestforretroactivity_Witt_Ԁv.State.#XPXXX.X#X.XXXPCrawford D meetsthecriteriaforretroactiveapplicationsetforthin_Witt_ ( v.State,387So.2d922(Fla.1980)._(   #  19      _Ԁ l    Astowhat constitutesadevelopmentoffundamentalsignificance,_Witt_explainsthatthiscategoryincludes changes    oflawwhichareofsufficientmagnitudetonecessitateretroactiveapplicationasascertainedbythethreefoldtestof_Stovall_Ԁ[v._Denno_,388U.S.293(1967),]and_Linkletter_Ԁ[v. P  Walker,381U.S.618(1965)],addingthat Gideonv.Wainwright 4 ...istheprimeexampleofalawchangeincludedwithinthiscategory.387So.2dat929.TheruleofCrawfordisthekind  \ of sweepingchangeoflawdescribedin_Witt_._0  #  20      _    RespondentseffortstoarguetheCrawforderrorisharmless  areunavailing. Dispensingwithconfrontationbecausetestimonyisobviouslyreliableisakintodispensingwithjurytrialbecauseadefendantisobviouslyguilty.ThisisnotwhattheSixthAmendmentprescribes.Crawford,2004U.S.LEXIS1838at  P *43.#XPXXX.`#X.XXXPԀItisstructuralerrorthatcanneverbeharmless.      Assuming_arguendo_Ԁthatsucherrorissubjecttoharmlesserroranalysis,thefactthatthevictimsifcalledwouldhavepaintedaverydifferentpictureofthesecrimesprecludestheStatefrommeetingitsburdenofprovingharmlessnessbeyondareasonabledoubt.#XPXXX.g#X.XXXPԀ   x @% CONCLUSION#XPXXX.{i#   \ X.XXXP  ForthereasonsstatedhereinandcontainedinthePetition,  Mr._Tompkins_Ԁisentitledtohabeasrelieffromhisunconstitutionalsentenceofdeath.X.XXX.  IHEREBYCERTIFYthatatruecopyoftheforegoingPetition \ forHabeasCorpushasbeenfurnishedbyUnitedStatesMail,first @  classpostageprepaid,toRobertLandry,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,<( 4 <DLX<OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral,ConcourseCenter4,3507E.Frontage_Rd_.,Suite200,Tampa,FL33607onMay17,2004.?}'hdER h?   `     h            `     h   MARTINJ._MCCLAIN_   `     h   FloridaBarNo.0754773   `     h   SpecialAssistant_CCRC_   `     h   141_N.E._Ԁ30thStreet R     `     h   WiltonManors,FL33334   `     h 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#OFFICEOFTHECAPITALCOLLATERALREGIONALCOUNSELSOUTH (#(#    `     h   101NE3rdAve.,Suite400   `     h   FortLauderdale,FL33301   `     h   (954)7131284   `     h   CounselforMr._Tompkins_@ CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCE  z B.` hp x (#XB  TheundersignedcounselcertifiesthatthisreplyistypedusingCourier12font.>s?}'hdE h?   `     h    ^ # 8!(!x   `     h   MARTINJ._MCCLAIN_#X.XXX.k#