Booker v. State (2000)

The Florida Supreme Court, quoting the earlier decision that it had issued in this case, rejected the petitioner’s claim on the ground that “[t]he introduction of this evidence would open the door to conjecture and speculation as to how much time a prisoner serves of a sentence and distract jurors from the relevant issue of what is the appropriate sen-fence for the murder conviction.” Booker v. State, 773 So.2d 1079, 1088 (Fla.2000) (quoting Bates, 750 So.2d at 11 ).

Simmons," Booker, 773 So.2d at 1097 (Anstead, J., dissenting in part) (emphasis added), that does not mean that it constitutes an unreasonable application of dearly established federal law, which thus far has only addressed jury instructions in the circumstance of statutory parole ineligibility.

See, e.g., Mayes v. Gibson, 210 F.3d 1284, 1294 (10th Cir. 2000) (concluding that there was no Simmons violation because "[n]o such false choice was created here" as in Simmons); Booker v. State, 773 So.2d 1079, 1097-98 (Fla. 2000) (noting that "the spirit of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Simmons v. South Carolina" is that "[t]his Court should not be a party to a process that affirmatively misleads a sentencing jury as to the true meaning and effect of the se…

The Florida Supreme Court, quoting the earlier decision that it had issued in this case, rejected the petitioner’s claim on the ground that “[t]he introduction of this evidence would open the door to conjecture and speculation as to how much time a prisoner serves of a sentence and distract jurors from the relevant issue of what is the appropriate sentence for the murder conviction.” Booker v. State, 773 So. 2d 1079, 1088 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Bates, 750 So. 2d at 11 ).

White has benefited from this careful and meticulous process and cannot now complain that the expensive and laborious process of habeas corpus appeals which exists to protect him has violated other of his rights.”); Stafford v. Ward, 59 F.3d 1025, 1028 (10th Cir.) cert, denied, 515 U.S. 1173 , 115 S.Ct. 2640 , 132 L.Ed.2d 896 (1995) (noting that to date, no federal court had recognized claim); Fearance v. Scott, 56 F.3d 633, 639 (5th Cir.1995) (“Fearance was not the unwillin…

Ind. 2001), aff’d sub nom., Williams v. Davis, 301 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2002); Ex Parte Bush, 695 So. 2d 138, 139-140 (Ala. 1997); State v. Schackart, 947 P.2d 315, 336 (Ariz. 1997); Hill v. State, 962 S.W.2d 762, 767 (Ark. 1998) (holding that it was not cruel and unusual punishment to resentence the defendant to death even though he had been on death row for more than fifteen years); People v. Massie, 19 Cal. 4th 550, 574 (1998); People v. Frye, 18 Cal. 4th 894, 1029-31 (1998…

See, e.g. , Mayes v. Gibson , 210 F.3d 1284, 1294 (10th Cir. 2000) (concluding that there was no Simmons violation because “[n]o such false choice was created here” as in Simmons ); Booker v. State , 773 So.2d 1079, 1097-98 (Fla. 2000) (noting that “the spirit of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Simmons v. South Carolina ” is that “[t]his Court should not be a party to a process that affirmatively misleads a sentencing jury as to the true meaning and effect of t…

See Hoskins, 965 So.2d at 9 ; Booker v. State, 773 So.2d 1079, 1089-90 (Fla.2000) (acknowledging *605 that a race-neutral reason that applied to another juror who was not challenged could indicate pretext); Melbourne, 679 So.2d at 764 & nn. 8-9.

See also Bush v. State, 295 So. 3d 179 , 210 (Fla. 2020) (“Bush’s argument that he was entitled to a jury instruction on mercy is also without merit.”); Downs v. Moore, 801 So. 2d 906, 913 (Fla. 2001); Booker v. State, 773 So. 2d 1079, 1091 (Fla. 2000); Elledge v. State, 706 So. 2d 1340, 1346 (Fla. - 28 - 1997).

At the time of trial, the Florida constitution gave “[v]ictims of crime . . . the right to be . . . present . . . at all crucial stages of criminal proceedings, to the extent that th[is] right[] do[es] not interfere with the constitutional rights of the accused.” Booker v. State, 773 So. 2d 1079, 1094 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Art.

Booker was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eight to four; Booker v. State, 773 So.2d 1079, 1086 (Fla. 2001).

Booker v. State, 773 So. 2d 1079, 1086 (Fla. 2001).

In Slappy, the Florida Supreme Court "provided a nonexclusive list of factors a trial court may consider in determining whether the reason given for exercising a peremptory challenge is genuine.” Booker v. State, 773 So.2d 1079, 1088 (Fla.2000). .

In Slappy, the Florida Supreme Court “provided a nonexclusive list of factors a trial court may consider in determining whether the reason given for exercising a peremptory challenge is genuine.” Booker v. State, 773 So. 2d 1079, 1088 (Fla. 2000). 4 The State also argues that the defense waived this claim by failing to properly renew its objections prior to the jury being sworn.

See, e.g., Pardo, 108 So.3d at 569 (rejecting claim that execution after twenty-four years on death row constitutes cruel and unusual punishment); Ferguson, 101 So.3d at 366-67 (rejecting claim that execution after over three decades of incarceration on death row constitutes cruel and unusual punishment); Gore, 91 So.3d at 780 (rejecting claim that adding execution to the twenty-three years spent on death row constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and violates “binding nor…

I, § 16(b), Fla. Const. We have cautioned, however, that “the rights provided to victims and victims’ families under article I, section 16(b) are not absolute, as they are subordinate to the rights of an accused when the rights involved are in conflict.” Booker v. State, 773 So.2d 1079, 1095 (Fla. 2000).

Moreover, we have stated that "no federal or state courts have accepted [the] argument that a prolonged stay on death row constitutes cruel and unusual punishment." Booker v. State, 773 So.2d 1079, 1096 (Fla.2000) (quoting Knight v. State, 746 So.2d 423, 437 (Fla.1998)).

Justice Thomas has concluded that after the resounding rejection by courts of Lackey claims that the Supreme Court "should consider the experiment concluded." Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990, 993 , 120 S.Ct. 459, 461 , 145 L.Ed.2d 370, 872 (1999) (Thomas, J., concurring in denial of certio-rari); see, e.g., Chambers v. Bowersox, 157 F.3d 560, 570 (8th Cir.1998); Ex parte Bush, 695 So.2d 138, 140 (Ala.1997); State v. Schackart, 190 Ariz. 238 , 947 P.2d 315, 336 (1997); People…

See Ex Parte Bush, 695 So.2d 138, 140 (Ala.1997); Hill v. State, 331 Ark. 312 , 962 S.W.2d 762, 767 (1998); State v. Schackart, 190 Ariz. 238 , 947 P.2d 315, 336 (1997); People v. Frye, 18 Cal.4th 894 , 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25 , 959 P.2d 183 , 262 (1998); People v. Massie, 19 Cal.4th 550 , 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 816 , 967 P.2d 29, 44-45 (1998); Booker v. State, 773 So.2d 1079 , 2000 WL 1472497, *16 (Fla. Oct.5, 2000); McKinney v. State, 133 Idaho 695 , 992 P.2d 144, 151 (1999); Bell v. St…

See Booker v. State, 773 So.2d 1079, 1081 (Fla.2000).

“Relevant circumstances may include — but are not limited to — -the following: the racial makeup of the venire; prior strikes exercised against the same racial group; a strike based on a reason equally applicable to an unchallenged juror; or singling the juror out for special treatment.” Id. at 764 n. 8 (citing State v. Slappy, 522 So.2d 18 (Fla.1988)); see also Booker v. State, 773 So.2d 1079, 1088 (Fla.2000) (“[W]e provided a nonexclusive list of factors a trial court may …

“Relevant circumstances may include – but are not limited to – the following: the racial make-up of the venire; prior strikes exercised against the same racial group; a strike based on a reason equally applicable to an unchallenged juror; or singling the juror out for special treatment.” [Melbourne, 679 So. 2d at 764 n.8] (citing State v. Slappy, 522 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1988)); see also Booker v. State, 773 So. 2d 1079, 1088 (Fla. 2000) (“[W]e provided a nonexclusive list of fac…

“Relevant circumstances may include — but are not limited to — the following: the racial make-up of the venire; prior strikes exercised against the same racial group; a strike based on a reason equally applicable to an unchallenged juror; or singling the juror out for special treatment.” [Melbourne, 679 So.2d at 764 n. 8] (citing State v. Slappy, 522 So.2d 18 (Fla.1988)); see also Booker v. State, 773 So.2d 1079, 1088 (Fla.2000) (“[W]e provided a nonexclusive list of factors…

“Relevant circumstances may include—but are not limited to—the following: the racial make-up of the venire; prior strikes exercised against the same racial group; a strike based on a reason equally applicable to an unchallenged juror; or singling the juror out for special treatment.” [Melbourne, 679 So. 2d] at 764 n.8 (citing State v. Slappy, 522 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1988)); see also Booker v. State, 773 So. 2d 1079, 1088 (Fla. 2000) (“[W]e provided a nonexclusive list of factors…

“Relevant circumstances may include— but are not limited to — the following: the racial make-up of the venire; prior strikes exercised against the same racial group; a strike based on a reason equally applicable to an unchallenged juror; or singling the juror out for special treatment.” [Melbourne, 679 So.2d] at 764 n. 8 (citing State v. Slappy, 522 So.2d 18 (Fla.1988)); see also Booker v. State, 773 So.2d 1079, 1088 (Fla.2000) (“[W]e provided a nonexclusive list of factors …

“Relevant circumstances may include— but are not limited to — the following: the racial make-up of the venire; prior strikes exercised against the same racial group; a strike based on a reason equally applicable to an unchallenged juror; or singling the juror out for special treatment.” [Melbourne, 679 So.2d at 764 n. 8] (citing State v. Slappy, 522 So.2d 18 (Fla.1988)); see also Booker v. State, 773 So.2d 1079, 1088 (Fla.2000) (“[W]e provided a nonexclusive list of factors …

Elledge, 911 So.2d at 77 ; see also Booker v. State, 773 So.2d 1079, 1096 (Fla.2000) (rejecting Booker’s claim that the State forfeited its right to execute him under binding norms of international law).

See id. at 1091 n. 15; see also Singleton v. State, 783 So.2d 970, 972-73 (Fla.2001) (upholding death penalty in stabbing death where trial court found two aggravators, including HAC, three statutory mitigators, and nine nonstatutory mitigators); Spencer v. State, 691 So.2d 1062, 1063 (Fla.1996) (upholding death penalty where trial court applied two aggravating factors, including HAC, two statutory mental health mitigating factors, and a number of nonstatutory mitigators, in…

See, e.g., Booker v. State, 773 So.2d 1079, 1090 (Fla.2000) (observing that the Court has repeatedly held that clarifying instructions on mitigating circumstances are not required); Elledge v. State, 706 So.2d 1340, 1346 (Fla.1997) (finding that the trial court did not err in refusing to give a special jury instruction addressing the nature and functioning of mitigating circumstances where the trial court had given the standard instruction on mitigating circumstances), cert.…

See Booker v. State, 773 So.2d 1079, 1091 (Fla.2000); Elledge v. State, 706 So.2d 1340, 1346 (Fla.1997).