Caldwell claim in Florida

2021Taking the statements in reverse order, no error, let alone fundamental error, occurred as a result of the prosecutor’s statement that he would ask the jury to return a “recommendation” of death because the statement did not “improperly describe[] the - 17 - role assigned to the jury by local law.” Romano v. Oklahoma, 512 U.S. 1, 9 (1994) (“[T]o establish a Caldwell violation, a defendant necessarily must show that the remarks to the jury improperly described the role assigned to the jury by local law.”) (quoting Dugger v. Adams, 489 U.S. 401, 407 (1989)).

2021Taking the statements in reverse order, no error, let alone fundamental error, occurred as a result of the prosecutor’s statement that he would ask the jury to return a “recommendation” of death because the statement did not “improperly describe[] the - 17 - role assigned to the jury by local law.” Romano v. Oklahoma, 512 U.S. 1, 9 (1994) (“[T]o establish a Caldwell violation, a defendant necessarily must show that the remarks to the jury improperly described the role assigned to the jury by local law.”) (quoting Dugger v. Adams, 489 U.S. 401, 407 (1989)).

2014See, e.g., Jones v. State, 928 So.2d 1178 , 1182 n. 5 (Fla.2006) (holding that a Caldwell claim is procedurally barred if it is not raised on direct appeal); Rigterink v. State, 66 So.3d 866, 897 (Fla.2011) (rejecting Caldwell challenge to the standard jury instructions on the merits); Miller v. State, 926 So.2d 1248, 1259-60 (Fla.2006) (rejecting as both procedurally barred and without merit claims that (1) Florida’s capital statute fails to provide a standard for determining that aggravating circumstances “outweigh” mitigating circumstances, fails to define “sufficient aggravating circumstan

2014See, e.g., Jones v. State, 928 So.2d 1178 , 1182 n. 5 (Fla.2006) (holding that a Caldwell claim is procedurally barred if it is not raised on direct appeal); Rigterink v. State, 66 So.3d 866, 897 (Fla.2011) (rejecting Caldwell challenge to the standard jury instructions on the merits); Miller v. State, 926 So.2d 1248, 1259-60 (Fla.2006) (rejecting as both procedurally barred and without merit claims that (1) Florida’s capital statute fails to provide a standard for determining that aggravating circumstances “outweigh” mitigating circumstances, fails to define “sufficient aggravating circumstan

2018In Combs v. State , 525 So.2d 853 , 856 (Fla. 1988), we again distinguished the sentencing scheme at issue in Caldwell , thus finding Caldwell inapplicable in Florida.

1990Spalding v. Dugger, 547 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 1989) (table). [2] Because Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 , 105 S.Ct. 2633 , 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), is inapplicable in Florida, Combs v. State, 525 So.2d 853 (Fla. 1988), counsel's failure to object to any currently alleged Caldwell error cannot be ineffective assistance.

2020See Reynolds v. State, 251 So. 3d 811, 825 (Fla. 2018) (stating that, because it did not violate Caldwell to refer to the jury’s role as advisory prior to the Hurst decisions, “a Caldwell claim . . . cannot [now] be used to retroactively invalidate the jury instructions that were proper at the time under Florida law”).

2020See Reynolds v. State, 251 So. 3d 811, 825 (Fla. 2018) (stating that, because it did not violate Caldwell to refer to the jury’s role as advisory prior to the Hurst decisions, “a Caldwell claim . . . cannot [now] be used to retroactively invalidate the jury instructions that were proper at the time under Florida law”).

2021Taking the statements in reverse order, no error, let alone fundamental error, occurred as a result of the prosecutor’s statement that he would ask the jury to return a “recommendation” of death because the statement did not “improperly describe[] the - 17 - role assigned to the jury by local law.” Romano v. Oklahoma, 512 U.S. 1, 9 (1994) (“[T]o establish a Caldwell violation, a defendant necessarily must show that the remarks to the jury improperly described the role assigned to the jury by local law.”) (quoting Dugger v. Adams, 489 U.S. 401, 407 (1989)).

2021Taking the statements in reverse order, no error, let alone fundamental error, occurred as a result of the prosecutor’s statement that he would ask the jury to return a “recommendation” of death because the statement did not “improperly describe[] the - 17 - role assigned to the jury by local law.” Romano v. Oklahoma, 512 U.S. 1, 9 (1994) (“[T]o establish a Caldwell violation, a defendant necessarily must show that the remarks to the jury improperly described the role assigned to the jury by local law.”) (quoting Dugger v. Adams, 489 U.S. 401, 407 (1989)).

2025See, e.g., Mapes v. Coyle, 171 F.3d 408, 414-15 (6th Cir. 1999) (rejecting a “ ‘recommendation’ issue” Caldwell claim in which the defendant argued that the judge “repeatedly told the jury that its job was merely to recommend a sentence,” even though, under the relevant Ohio statute, “a ‘recommendation’ not to impose the death penalty would be binding on the court”); cf. Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 381-82 (1999) (citing Romano and rejecting the notion “that a death sentence is arbitrary within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment if the jury is not given any bit of information that mi

2025See, e.g., Mapes v. Coyle, 171 F.3d 408, 414-15 (6th Cir. 1999) (rejecting a “ ‘recommendation’ issue” Caldwell claim in which the defendant argued that the judge “repeatedly told the jury that its job was merely to recommend a sentence,” even though, under the relevant Ohio statute, “a ‘recommendation’ not to impose the death penalty would be binding on the court”); cf. Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 381-82 (1999) (citing Romano and rejecting the notion “that a death sentence is arbitrary within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment if the jury is not given any bit of information that mi

2025See, e.g., Mapes v. Coyle, 171 F.3d 408, 414-15 (6th Cir. 1999) (rejecting a “ ‘recommendation’ issue” Caldwell claim in which the defendant argued that the judge “repeatedly told the jury that its job was merely to recommend a sentence,” even though, under the relevant Ohio statute, “a ‘recommendation’ not to impose the death penalty would be binding on the court”); cf. Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 381-82 (1999) (citing Romano and rejecting the notion “that a death sentence is arbitrary within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment if the jury is not given any bit of information that mi

2025See, e.g., Mapes v. Coyle, 171 F.3d 408, 414-15 (6th Cir. 1999) (rejecting a “ ‘recommendation’ issue” Caldwell claim in which the defendant argued that the judge “repeatedly told the jury that its job was merely to recommend a sentence,” even though, under the relevant Ohio statute, “a ‘recommendation’ not to impose the death penalty would be binding on the court”); cf. Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 381-82 (1999) (citing Romano and rejecting the notion “that a death sentence is arbitrary within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment if the jury is not given any bit of information that mi

2018Next, I turn to address the per curiam opinion's discussion of Reynolds' claim to a right to relief under Hurst pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Caldwell v. Mississippi , 472 U.S. 320 , 105 S.Ct. 2633 , 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985) -what the per curiam opinion labels a " Hurst -induced Caldwell claim." Per curiam op. at 818-19; see concurring specially op. at 828-29 (Lawson, J.).

2018Next, I turn to address the per curiam opinion's discussion of Reynolds' claim to a right to relief under Hurst pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Caldwell v. Mississippi , 472 U.S. 320 , 105 S.Ct. 2633 , 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985) -what the per curiam opinion labels a " Hurst -induced Caldwell claim." Per curiam op. at 818-19; see concurring specially op. at 828-29 (Lawson, J.).

2004This Court denied relief on that claim and related claims in our opinion, stating: This Court previously has ruled adversely to Robinson's additional claims that call into doubt the propriety of the standard jury instructions; that the trial court improperly rejected Robinson's requests for additional jury instructions; that the jury was misadvised in violation of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 , 105 S.Ct. 2633 , 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), see Grossman v. State, 525 So.2d 833, 839 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1071 , 109 S.Ct. 1354 , 103 L.Ed.2d 822 (1989)....

1990Grossman v. State, 525 So.2d 833 (Fla. 1988) (the rationale of Caldwell is inapplicable in Florida where the judge rather than the jury renders the sentence), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1071 , 109 S.Ct. 1354 , 103 L.Ed.2d 822 (1989); Jackson, 547 So.2d at 1198 n. 1 (appellate counsel not ineffective for failing to raise Caldwell claim which was not raised at trial).

2018E.g. , Card v. State , 803 So.2d 613 , 628 (Fla. 2001) ; Sireci v. State , 773 So.2d 34 , 40 nn.9 & 11 (Fla. 2000) ; Teffeteller v. Dugger , 734 So.2d 1009 , 1026 (Fla. 1999) ; Brown v. State , 721 So.2d 274 , 283 (Fla. 1998) ; Burns v. State , 699 So.2d 646 , 655 (Fla. 1997) ; Johnson v. State , 660 So.2d 637 , 647 (Fla. 1995) ; see also Davis , 119 F.3d at 1482 .

2018E.g. , Card v. State , 803 So.2d 613 , 628 (Fla. 2001) ; Sireci v. State , 773 So.2d 34 , 40 nn.9 & 11 (Fla. 2000) ; Teffeteller v. Dugger , 734 So.2d 1009 , 1026 (Fla. 1999) ; Brown v. State , 721 So.2d 274 , 283 (Fla. 1998) ; Burns v. State , 699 So.2d 646 , 655 (Fla. 1997) ; Johnson v. State , 660 So.2d 637 , 647 (Fla. 1995) ; see also Davis , 119 F.3d at 1482 .

2018E.g. , Card v. State , 803 So.2d 613 , 628 (Fla. 2001) ; Sireci v. State , 773 So.2d 34 , 40 nn.9 & 11 (Fla. 2000) ; Teffeteller v. Dugger , 734 So.2d 1009 , 1026 (Fla. 1999) ; Brown v. State , 721 So.2d 274 , 283 (Fla. 1998) ; Burns v. State , 699 So.2d 646 , 655 (Fla. 1997) ; Johnson v. State , 660 So.2d 637 , 647 (Fla. 1995) ; see also Davis , 119 F.3d at 1482 .

2018E.g. , Card v. State , 803 So.2d 613 , 628 (Fla. 2001) ; Sireci v. State , 773 So.2d 34 , 40 nn.9 & 11 (Fla. 2000) ; Teffeteller v. Dugger , 734 So.2d 1009 , 1026 (Fla. 1999) ; Brown v. State , 721 So.2d 274 , 283 (Fla. 1998) ; Burns v. State , 699 So.2d 646 , 655 (Fla. 1997) ; Johnson v. State , 660 So.2d 637 , 647 (Fla. 1995) ; see also Davis , 119 F.3d at 1482 .

2018In Davis, the Eleventh Circuit expressly overruled any implication in Mann and Harich “that a prosecutorial or judicial comment or instruction could constitute Caldwell error even if it was a technically accurate description under state law of the jury’s actual role.” Id. at 1482 .

2018In Davis , the Eleventh Circuit expressly overruled any implication in Mann and Harich "that a prosecutorial or judicial comment or instruction could constitute Caldwell error even if it was a technically accurate description under state law of the jury's actual role." Id. at 1482 .

2018We conclusively held that Florida's sentencing scheme was distinguishable from the procedure at issue in Caldwell , that jury recommendations in Florida were "merely advisory," and that it was not a Caldwell violation to refer to the jury as "advisory" as long as "the jury's role was adequately portrayed and they were in no way misled as to the importance of their role." Pope v. Wainwright , 496 So.2d 798 , 805 (Fla. 1986).

2018We conclusively held that Florida's sentencing scheme was distinguishable from the procedure at issue in Caldwell , that jury recommendations in Florida were "merely advisory," and that it was not a Caldwell violation to refer to the jury as "advisory" as long as "the jury's role was adequately portrayed and they were in no way misled as to the importance of their role." Pope v. Wainwright , 496 So.2d 798 , 805 (Fla. 1986).

2018E.g. , Card v. State , 803 So.2d 613 , 628 (Fla. 2001) ; Sireci v. State , 773 So.2d 34 , 40 nn.9 & 11 (Fla. 2000) ; Teffeteller v. Dugger , 734 So.2d 1009 , 1026 (Fla. 1999) ; Brown v. State , 721 So.2d 274 , 283 (Fla. 1998) ; Burns v. State , 699 So.2d 646 , 655 (Fla. 1997) ; Johnson v. State , 660 So.2d 637 , 647 (Fla. 1995) ; see also Davis , 119 F.3d at 1482 .

2018E.g. , Card v. State , 803 So.2d 613 , 628 (Fla. 2001) ; Sireci v. State , 773 So.2d 34 , 40 nn.9 & 11 (Fla. 2000) ; Teffeteller v. Dugger , 734 So.2d 1009 , 1026 (Fla. 1999) ; Brown v. State , 721 So.2d 274 , 283 (Fla. 1998) ; Burns v. State , 699 So.2d 646 , 655 (Fla. 1997) ; Johnson v. State , 660 So.2d 637 , 647 (Fla. 1995) ; see also Davis , 119 F.3d at 1482 .

2018E.g. , Card v. State , 803 So.2d 613 , 628 (Fla. 2001) ; Sireci v. State , 773 So.2d 34 , 40 nn.9 & 11 (Fla. 2000) ; Teffeteller v. Dugger , 734 So.2d 1009 , 1026 (Fla. 1999) ; Brown v. State , 721 So.2d 274 , 283 (Fla. 1998) ; Burns v. State , 699 So.2d 646 , 655 (Fla. 1997) ; Johnson v. State , 660 So.2d 637 , 647 (Fla. 1995) ; see also Davis , 119 F.3d at 1482 .

2018E.g. , Card v. State , 803 So.2d 613 , 628 (Fla. 2001) ; Sireci v. State , 773 So.2d 34 , 40 nn.9 & 11 (Fla. 2000) ; Teffeteller v. Dugger , 734 So.2d 1009 , 1026 (Fla. 1999) ; Brown v. State , 721 So.2d 274 , 283 (Fla. 1998) ; Burns v. State , 699 So.2d 646 , 655 (Fla. 1997) ; Johnson v. State , 660 So.2d 637 , 647 (Fla. 1995) ; see also Davis , 119 F.3d at 1482 .

2018See also Owen v. State, 773 So. 2d 510 , 515 n.11 (Fla. 2000) (“[T]his Court has repeatedly held that Caldwell errors cannot be raised on collateral review.”).

2018See also Owen v. State , 773 So.2d 510 , 515 n.11 (Fla. 2000) ("[T]his Court has repeatedly held that Caldwell errors cannot be raised on collateral review.").

2018Fla. Oct. 15, 2009) ("Because Florida law remains unchanged after Ring , and because the standard jury instructions accurately describe the jury role at sentencing under Florida law, there can be no Caldwell violation." (citing Romano , 512 U.S. at 9 , 114 S.Ct. 2004 ) ); see also Belcher v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corrs. , 427 Fed.Appx. 692 , 695 (11th Cir. 2011) ; Troy v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corrs. , No. 8:11-cv-796-T30-AEP, 2013 WL 24212 , at *1, *45-47 (M.D.

2018E.g. , Card v. State , 803 So.2d 613 , 628 (Fla. 2001) ; Sireci v. State , 773 So.2d 34 , 40 nn.9 & 11 (Fla. 2000) ; Teffeteller v. Dugger , 734 So.2d 1009 , 1026 (Fla. 1999) ; Brown v. State , 721 So.2d 274 , 283 (Fla. 1998) ; Burns v. State , 699 So.2d 646 , 655 (Fla. 1997) ; Johnson v. State , 660 So.2d 637 , 647 (Fla. 1995) ; see also Davis , 119 F.3d at 1482 .

2018E.g. , Card v. State , 803 So.2d 613 , 628 (Fla. 2001) ; Sireci v. State , 773 So.2d 34 , 40 nn.9 & 11 (Fla. 2000) ; Teffeteller v. Dugger , 734 So.2d 1009 , 1026 (Fla. 1999) ; Brown v. State , 721 So.2d 274 , 283 (Fla. 1998) ; Burns v. State , 699 So.2d 646 , 655 (Fla. 1997) ; Johnson v. State , 660 So.2d 637 , 647 (Fla. 1995) ; see also Davis , 119 F.3d at 1482 .

2018Harich, 844 F.2d at 1475; see Davis v. Singletary, 119 F.3d 1471 , 1482 n.5 (11th Cir. 1997). - 21 - F.2d at 1456 (quoting McCorquodale v. Kemp, 829 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987)); see Harich, 844 F.2d at 1477-78 (Tjoflat, J., concurring specially).

2018Later, in companion opinions, the Eleventh Circuit found Caldwell error in Mann v. Dugger , 844 F.2d 1446 (11th Cir. 1988) (en banc), but no error in Harich v. Dugger , 844 F.2d 1464 (11th Cir. 1988) (en banc). 11 Those decisions made clear that the Eleventh Circuit at that time focused primarily on whether the comments minimized the jury's sense of responsibility and whether the trial court "sufficiently correct[ed] the impression." Mann , 844 F.2d at 1456 (quoting McCorquodale v. Kemp , 829 F.2d 1035 , 1037 (11th Cir. 1987) ); see Harich , 844 F.2d at 1477-78 (Tjoflat, J., concurring special