Barclay v. State
Citation | 411 So.2d 1310 |
Decision Date | 04 June 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 47260,47260 |
Parties | Elwood Clark BARCLAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Kenneth Vickers and Steven E. Rohan of Vickers & Rohan, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
This case returns to us following our remand to the trial court in order to provide Barclay an opportunity to rebut or explain matters appearing in a presentence investigation report (PSI). Barclay v. State, 362 So.2d 657 (Fla.1978). Before that remand, Barclay's conviction and sentence for first degree murder had been affirmed by this Court, 1 and review of that action had been denied by the United States Supreme Court. 2
On remand Barclay was afforded several evidentiary hearings and argument of counsel. Only one witness was called on Barclay's behalf at the first hearing, principally to portray Barclay's lesser role in the events surrounding the murder, and to comment on a second murder with which he was not involved. At a second hearing, Barclay's counsel argued extensively against the reimposition of the death penalty, but offered virtually no evidence in derogation of the information contained in the PSI. The trial judge concluded during a later sentencing proceeding that he had "carefully considered all of those matters presented by the defendant in response to the presentence investigation report, and (found) nothing is such responses which mitigates any circumstance herein." Our independent review of the record in this case completely supports this conclusion.
Barclay now challenges the reimposition of a death sentence, primarily by argument against the findings previously reviewed here and affirmed. We cannot accept counsel's suggestion that we abrogate the "law of the case". See Dougan v. State 398 So.2d 439 (Fla.1981). The dictates of Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977), have been met, and no defect in the original sentencing order has been identified as stemming from improper material in the PSI. There being no reason to reconsider the matters previously analyzed, we again affirm the trial judge's sentence of death.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Goode v. Wainwright
...102 S.Ct. 2021, 72 L.Ed.2d 474 (1982).26 It is true that the constitutionality of the Florida rule may be implicated in Barclay v. Florida, 411 So.2d 1310 (Fla.1982), in which the Supreme Court has recently granted certiorari. --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 340, 74 L.Ed.2d 382 (1982). Also pendin......
-
Barclay v. Florida
...were essentially identical to its original findings, and the Florida Supreme Court again affirmed. Held: The judgment is affirmed. 411 So.2d 1310 (Fla., 1981) Justice REHNQUIST, joined by Chief Justice BURGER, Justice WHITE, and Justice O'CONNOR, concluded: 1. Although the State concedes th......
-
Ford v. Strickland
...his appeal, the motion is untimely. Fed.R.App.P. 42(b). The United States Supreme Court has accepted certiorari of Barclay v. Florida, 411 So.2d 1310 (Fla.1982), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 340, 74 L.Ed.2d ---- (1982) which may involve an issue in this case. Although this Court ......
-
Spaziano v. Singletary
...(1979); Dougan v. State, 398 So.2d 439, 440 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 882, 102 S.Ct. 367, 70 L.Ed.2d 193 (1981); and, Barclay v. State, 411 So.2d 1310 (Fla.1982), aff'd, 463 U.S. 939, 103 S.Ct. 3418, 77 L.Ed.2d 1134 (1983). Those decisions do not establish that Florida law prohibited c......