quantitative analysis in Florida

2020We do not ask if the aggravators outnumbered the mitigators, Lowe v. State, 259 So. 3d 23, 66 (Fla. 2018), but instead undertake “a thoughtful and deliberate “qualitative review . . . of the underlying basis for each aggravator and mitigator rather than a quantitative analysis.” Gill v. State, 14 So. 3d 946, 964 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Urbin v. State, 714 So. 2d 411, 416 (Fla. 1998)).

2020We do not ask if the aggravators outnumbered the mitigators, Lowe v. State, 259 So. 3d 23, 66 (Fla. 2018), but instead undertake “a thoughtful and deliberate “qualitative review . . . of the underlying basis for each aggravator and mitigator rather than a quantitative analysis.” Gill v. State, 14 So. 3d 946, 964 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Urbin v. State, 714 So. 2d 411, 416 (Fla. 1998)).

2015This entails “a qualitative review by this Court of the underlying basis for each aggravator *836 and mitigator rather than a quantitative analysis.” In other words, proportionality review “is not a comparison between the number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” Williams, 87 So.3d at 205 (quoting Offord v. State, 959 So.2d 187, 191 (Fla.2007)).

2014“This entails ‘a qualitative review ... of the underlying basis for each aggra-vator and mitigator rather than a quantitative analysis.’ ” Offord v. State, 959 So.2d 187, 191 (Fla.2007) (quoting Urbin v. State, 714 So.2d 411, 416 (Fla.1998)).

2012We do not simply perform “a quantitative analysis of the number of aggravators versus the number of mitigators,” but “a qualitative review of the basis for each aggravator and miti-gator.” Id. (quoting Urbin, 714 So.2d at 416 ) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2008Further, this Court has stated: Proportionality review "requires a discrete analysis of the facts," Terry v. State, 668 So.2d 954, 965 (Fla.1996), entailing a qualitative review by this Court of the underlying basis for each *533 aggravator and mitigator rather than a quantitative analysis.

2014This entails “a qualitative review by this Court of the underlying basis for each aggravator and mitigator rather than a quantitative analysis.” In other words, proportionality review “is not a comparison between the number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” Williams v. State, 37 So.3d 187, 205 (Fla. 2010) (quoting Offord v. State, 959 So.2d 187, 191 (Fla.2007) (citations omitted)).

2014This entails “a qualitative review by this Court of the underlying basis for each aggravator and mitigator rather than a quantitative analysis.” In other words, proportionality review “is not a comparison between the number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” Williams v. State, 37 So. 3d 187, 205 (Fla. 2010) (quoting Offord v. State, 959 So. 2d 187, 191 (Fla. 2007) (citations omitted)).

2013Thus, our proportionality review requires that we discretely analyze the nature and weight of the underlying facts; we do not engage in a “ ‘mere tabulation’ of the aggravating and mitigating factors.” Terry v. State, 668 So.2d 954, 965 (Fla.1996) (quoting Francis v. Dugger, 908 F.2d 696, 705 (11th Cir.1990)).

2012Thus, our proportionality review requires that we discretely analyze the nature and weight of the underlying facts; we do not engage in a “ ‘mere tabulation’ of the aggravating and mitigating factors.” Terry v. State, 668 So.2d 954, 965 (Fla.1996) (quoting Francis v. Dugger, 908 F.2d 696, 705 (11th Cir.1990)).

2015However, in reviewing proportionality, we “will not disturb the sentencing judge’s determination as to ‘the relative weight to give to each established mitigator’ where that ruling is ‘supported by competent substantial evidence in the record.’ ” Blackwood v. State, 111 So.2d 399, 412-13 (Fla.2000) (quoting Spencer v. State, 691 So.2d 1062, 1064 (Fla.1996)).

2014As noted by the majority, in reviewing proportionality, the Court “will not disturb the sentencing judge’s determination as to ‘the relative weight to give to each established miti-gator’ where that ruling is ‘supported by competent substantial evidence.’ ” Blackwood v. State, 777 So.2d 399, 412-13 (Fla.2000) (quoting Spencer v. State, 691 So.2d 1062, 1064 (Fla.1996)).

2014As noted by the majority, in reviewing proportionality, the Court “will not disturb the sentencing judge’s determination as to ‘the relative weight to give to each established miti-gator’ where that ruling is ‘supported by competent substantial evidence.’ ” Blackwood v. State, 777 So.2d 399, 412-13 (Fla.2000) (quoting Spencer v. State, 691 So.2d 1062, 1064 (Fla.1996)).

2010In making a proportionality analysis, this Court “will not disturb the sentencing judge’s determination as to ‘the relative weight to give to each established mitigator’ where that ruling is ‘supported by competent substantial evidence.’ ” Blackwood v. State, 777 So.2d 399, 412-13 (Fla.2000) (quoting Spencer v. State, 691 *1029 So.2d 1062, 1064 (Fla.1996)).

2017“Rather, this entails ‘a qualitative review by this Court of the underlying basis for each aggravator and mitigator rather than a quantitative analysis.’ ” Id. (quoting Urbin v. State, 714 So. 7 .

2017“Rather, this entails ‘a qualitative review by this Court of the underlying basis for each aggravator and miti-gator rather than a quantitative analysis.’ ” Id. (quoting Urbin v. State, 714 So.2d 411, 416 (Fla. 1998)).

2020See, e.g., Taylor v. State, 937 So. 2d 590, 601 (Fla. 2006) (holding that the process of weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances during capital sentencing proceedings is not a quantitative comparison). �e prosecutor’s comments, however, are more properly read as the State’s acknowledgment that Bright’s service in the Marines, including his action of discovering a potentially fatal mechanical problem with an aircraft, constitutes a mitigating circumstance.

2012See, e.g., Taylor v. State, 937 So.2d 590, 601 (Fla.2006) (holding that the process of weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances during capital sentencing proceedings is not a quantitative comparison).

2020We do not ask if the aggravators outnumbered the mitigators, Lowe v. State, 259 So. 3d 23, 66 (Fla. 2018), but instead undertake “a thoughtful and deliberate “qualitative review . . . of the underlying basis for each aggravator and mitigator rather than a quantitative analysis.” Gill v. State, 14 So. 3d 946, 964 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Urbin v. State, 714 So. 2d 411, 416 (Fla. 1998)).

2020We do not ask if the aggravators outnumbered the mitigators, Lowe v. State, 259 So. 3d 23, 66 (Fla. 2018), but instead undertake “a thoughtful and deliberate “qualitative review . . . of the underlying basis for each aggravator and mitigator rather than a quantitative analysis.” Gill v. State, 14 So. 3d 946, 964 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Urbin v. State, 714 So. 2d 411, 416 (Fla. 1998)).

2020We also “accept the weight assigned by the trial court to the aggravating and mitigating factors.” Covington, 228 So. 3d at 68 (quoting Hayward v. State, 24 So. 3d 17, 46 (Fla. 2009)). -9- In Doty’s first direct appeal, we found that his death sentence was proportionate in comparison to other capital cases, reasoning as follows: Comparing the death sentence in this case to other capital cases, we recognize that this case is exceedingly similar to the facts and circumstances of [Gill], a case in which the defendant was convicted of murder after he strangled his cellmate.

2020We also “accept the weight assigned by the trial court to the aggravating and mitigating factors.” Covington, 228 So. 3d at 68 (quoting Hayward v. State, 24 So. 3d 17, 46 (Fla. 2009)). -9- In Doty’s first direct appeal, we found that his death sentence was proportionate in comparison to other capital cases, reasoning as follows: Comparing the death sentence in this case to other capital cases, we recognize that this case is exceedingly similar to the facts and circumstances of [Gill], a case in which the defendant was convicted of murder after he strangled his cellmate.

2020We do not ask if the aggravators outnumbered the mitigators, Lowe v. State, 259 So. 3d 23, 66 (Fla. 2018), but instead undertake “a thoughtful and deliberate “qualitative review . . . of the underlying basis for each aggravator and mitigator rather than a quantitative analysis.” Gill v. State, 14 So. 3d 946, 964 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Urbin v. State, 714 So. 2d 411, 416 (Fla. 1998)).

2020We do not ask if the aggravators outnumbered the mitigators, Lowe v. State, 259 So. 3d 23, 66 (Fla. 2018), but instead undertake “a thoughtful and deliberate “qualitative review . . . of the underlying basis for each aggravator and mitigator rather than a quantitative analysis.” Gill v. State, 14 So. 3d 946, 964 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Urbin v. State, 714 So. 2d 411, 416 (Fla. 1998)).

2018See Gregory v. State, 118 So. 3d 770, 785-86 (Fla. 2013).

2018See Gregory v. State , 118 So.3d 770 , 785-86 (Fla. 2013).

2020“This entails ‘a qualitative review . . . of the underlying basis for each aggravator and mitigator rather than a quantitative analysis.’ ” Id. (quoting Urbin v. State, 714 So. 2d 411, 416 (Fla. 1998)). “[P]roportionality review in death cases rests at least in part on the recognition that death is a uniquely irrevocable penalty, requiring a more intensive level of judicial scrutiny or process than would lesser penalties.” Tillman v. State, 591 So. 2d 167, 169 (Fla. 1991).

2005We underscored this imperative in Tillman v. State, 591 So.2d 167 (Fla.1991): We have described the "proportionality review" conducted by this Court as follows: Because death is a unique punishment, it is necessary in each case to engage in a thoughtful, deliberate proportionality review to consider the totality of circumstances in a case, and to compare it with other capital cases.

1996The court found the " Ashbacker doctrine" [3] applicable, stating: "We are not the first to observe that where need is determined in accordance with a quantitative standard; that is, by number of units, a fixed pool of needed investments is thereby created." Id. at 23 .

1986Concluding that the Ashbacker doctrine is applicable "whenever an applicant is able to show that the granting of authority to some other applicant will *705 substantially prejudice his application," Id., the court explained why the doctrine is applicable in CON cases: We are not the first to observe that where need is determined in accordance with a quantitative standard; that is, by number of units, a fixed pool of needed investments is thereby created.

2012In other words, “comparison is not simply a calculation of the number of aggravators and mitigators.” Lebron, 982 So.2d at 668 .

2012In other words, “comparison is not simply a calculation of the number of aggravators and mitigators.” Lebron, 982 So.2d at 668 .

2020Id.

2010The death penalty is "reserved only for those cases where the most aggravating and least mitigating circumstances exist." Terry v. State, 668 So.2d 954, 965 (Fla.1996) (citing State v. Dixon, 283 So.2d 1, 7 (Fla.1973)).

2016See also Silvia v. State, 60 So. 3d 959, 974 (Fla. 2011) (holding that a proportionality analysis entails a qualitative, rather than a quantitative, review of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances).

2014“In reviewing the sentence for proportionality, this Court will accept the jury’s recommendation and the weight assigned by the trial judge to the aggravating and mitigating factors.” Silvia, 60 So.3d at 973 .

2014This Court has long recognized an obligation to perform a proportionality review. 5 See, e.g., Lamadline v. State, 303 So.2d 17, 20 (Fla.1974).

2014This Court has long recognized an - 23 - obligation to perform a proportionality review. 5 See, e.g., Lamadline v. State, 303 So. 2d 17, 20 (Fla. 1974).

2013“Rather, this entails ‘a qualitative review by this Court of the underlying basis for each aggravator and mitigator rather than a quantitative analysis.’ ” Simpson v. State, 3 So.3d 1135, 1148 (Fla.2009) (quoting Urbin, 714 So.2d at 416 ).

2013This Court is required to conduct a proportionality review “in order to prevent the imposition of unusual punishments under the Florida Constitution.” Phillips v. State, 39 So.3d 296, 305 (Fla.2010).

2010The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and this Court’s proportionality review require that the death penalty “be reserved only for. those cases that are the most aggravated and least mitigated.” Crook v. State, 908 So.2d 350, 357 (Fla.2005).

2010The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and this Court's proportionality review require that the death penalty "be reserved only for those cases that are the most aggravated and least mitigated." Crook v. State, 908 So.2d 350, 357 (Fla. 2005).

2007In other words, proportionality review "is not a comparison between the number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances." Sexton v. State, 775 So.2d 923, 935 (Fla.2000) (quoting Porter v. State, 564 So.2d 1060, 1064 (Fla.1990)).