Lambrix v. Singletary, No. 81941
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM; GRIMES, C.J., OVERTON, SHAW and HARDING, JJ., and McDONALD; KOGAN |
| Citation | 641 So.2d 847 |
| Docket Number | No. 81941 |
| Decision Date | 16 June 1994 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly S330 Cary Michael LAMBRIX, Petitioner, v. Harry K. SINGLETARY, etc., Respondent. |
Page 847
v.
Harry K. SINGLETARY, etc., Respondent.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 8, 1994.
Steven M. Goldstein, Sp. Counsel, Volunteer Lawyers' Resource Center of Florida, Inc., Tallahassee, and Robert Josefsberg of Podhurst, Orseck & Josefsberg, Miami, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Richard B. Martell, Chief, Capital Appeals, Tallahassee,
Page 848
and Robert J. Krauss, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.PER CURIAM.
Cary Michael Lambrix, a prisoner under sentence of death, petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(9), Florida Constitution, and find that Lambrix is not entitled to relief.
Lambrix was initially convicted of two counts of murder and sentenced to death in 1984. The convictions and sentences were affirmed by this Court in Lambrix v. State, 494 So.2d 1143 (Fla.1986). We have also rejected three collateral postconviction claims from Lambrix. See Lambrix v. Dugger, 529 So.2d 1110 (Fla.1988) (habeas petition); Lambrix v. State, 534 So.2d 1151 (Fla.1988) (appeal of trial court's denial of a 3.850 motion for postconviction relief); Lambrix v. State, 559 So.2d 1137 (Fla.1990) (appeal of trial court's denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus). Subsequent to these claims, the United States District Court denied Lambrix's habeas petition, Lambrix v. Dugger, No. 88-12107-Civ-Zloch (S.D.Fla. May 12, 1992), but the Eleventh Circuit directed Lambrix to return to this Court to settle any unresolved issues stemming from the United States Supreme Court's decision in Espinosa v. Florida, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 2926, 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992). Lambrix v. Dugger, No. 92-4539 (11th Cir. Mar. 3, 1993). This proceeding is a result of that directive.
In Espinosa, the United States Supreme Court held that it was error to instruct a jury "that it was entitled to find as an aggravating factor that the murder of which it has found [a defendant] guilty was 'especially wicked, evil, atrocious or cruel' " because this instruction was unconstitutionally vague and because it failed to provide sufficient guidance to the sentencer for determining the existence of the aggravating factor. 112 S.Ct. at 2927-29. In addressing this type of Espinosa claim, we have recently held that a defendant must do two things in order to preserve the claim for postconviction review. First, the defendant must attack "the instruction itself, either by submitting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peede v. State, No. SC04-2094.
...were erroneous, appellate counsel was not ineffective in failing to raise these issues on appeal. Id. (citing Lambrix v. Singletary, 641 So.2d 847, 848-49 In light of the above analysis, we affirm the trial court's denial of the claims set out in Peede's postconviction motion and deny Peede......
-
Lambrix v. Sec'y, No. 13–11917.
...Mar. 3, 1993) (unpublished). The Florida Supreme Court denied that counseled successive state habeas petition. See Lambrix v. Singletary, 641 So.2d 847, 849 (Fla.1994) (denying Lambrix's state habeas petition alleging Espinosa error and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel), reh'g de......
-
Lambrix v. Singletary, 965658
...Lambrix's Espinosa claim without considering its merits on the ground that the claim was procedurally barred. Lambrix v. Singletary, 641 So.2d 847 (Fla.1994). That court explained that although Lambrix had properly preserved his Espinosa objection at trial by requesting a limiting instructi......
-
Freeman v. State, No. SC79651
...they are procedurally barred in collateral proceedings. See Hardwick v. Dugger, 648 So.2d 100 (Fla.1994); Lambrix v. Singletary, 641 So.2d 847 (Fla. 1994); Bryan v. Dugger, 641 So.2d 61 (Fla. 1994). Moreover, defense counsel did argue this point to the jury. The issue was addressed in defen......
-
Peede v. State, No. SC04-2094.
...were erroneous, appellate counsel was not ineffective in failing to raise these issues on appeal. Id. (citing Lambrix v. Singletary, 641 So.2d 847, 848-49 In light of the above analysis, we affirm the trial court's denial of the claims set out in Peede's postconviction motion and deny Peede......
-
Lambrix v. Sec'y, No. 13–11917.
...Mar. 3, 1993) (unpublished). The Florida Supreme Court denied that counseled successive state habeas petition. See Lambrix v. Singletary, 641 So.2d 847, 849 (Fla.1994) (denying Lambrix's state habeas petition alleging Espinosa error and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel), reh'g de......
-
Lambrix v. Singletary, 965658
...Lambrix's Espinosa claim without considering its merits on the ground that the claim was procedurally barred. Lambrix v. Singletary, 641 So.2d 847 (Fla.1994). That court explained that although Lambrix had properly preserved his Espinosa objection at trial by requesting a limiting instructi......
-
Freeman v. State, No. SC79651
...they are procedurally barred in collateral proceedings. See Hardwick v. Dugger, 648 So.2d 100 (Fla.1994); Lambrix v. Singletary, 641 So.2d 847 (Fla. 1994); Bryan v. Dugger, 641 So.2d 61 (Fla. 1994). Moreover, defense counsel did argue this point to the jury. The issue was addressed in defen......