State v. Steele

• Decision Date: 12 October 2005
• Docket Number: No. SC04-802.,SC04-802.
• Citation: 921 So.2d 538
• Parties: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Alfredie STEELE, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

921 So.2d 538

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Alfredie STEELE, Respondent.

No. SC04-802.

Supreme Court of Florida.

October 12, 2005.

As Revised on Denial of Rehearing February 2, 2006.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, and Candance M. Sabella Assistant Attorney General, Chief of Capital Appeals, Tampa, FL, for Petitioner.

Robert Dillinger, Public Defender and Joy Goodyear, Assistant Public Defender, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Dade City, FL, for Respondent.

CANTERO, J.

In this case, we consider two issues resulting from the United States Supreme Court's decision concerning capital sentencing in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002): whether a trial court may require the state to notify the defendant of the aggravating factors on which it intends to rely, and whether a trial court may require the jury to specify each aggravating factor it finds, and the vote as to each.

In Ring, the Supreme Court held that in capital sentencing schemes where aggravating factors "operate as `the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense,' the Sixth Amendment requires that they be found by a jury." Id. at 609, 122 S.Ct. 2428 (quoting Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 494 n. 19, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000)). The effect of that decision on Florida's capital sentencing scheme remains unclear. In Florida, to recommend a sentence of death for the crime of first-degree murder, a majority of the jury must find that the State has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of at least one aggravating circumstance listed in the capital sentencing statute. See § 921.141(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004). It must also find that any aggravating circumstances outweigh any mitigating circumstances, also listed in the statute, that may exist. See § 921.141(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004). Since Ring, this Court has not yet forged a majority view about whether Ring applies in Florida; and if it does, what changes to Florida's sentencing scheme it requires. See, e.g., Windom v. State, 886 So.2d 915, 936-38 (Fla.2004) (Cantero, J., specially concurring) (explaining the post-Ring jurisprudence of the Court and the lack of consensus about whether Ring applies in Florida). Cf. Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400 (Fla.2005) (holding that Ring does not apply retroactively in Florida). That uncertainty has left trial judges groping for answers. This case is an example. The Second District Court of Appeal certified to us two questions of great public importance:

(1) Does a trial court depart from the essential requirements of law, in a death penalty case, by requiring the state to provide pre-guilt or pre-penalty phase notice of aggravating factors?

(2) Does a trial court depart from the essential requirements of law, in a death penalty case, by using a penalty phase special verdict form that details the jurors' determination concerning aggravating factors found by the jury?

State v. Steele, 872 So.2d 364, 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we answer "no" to the first question and "yes" to the second. We hold that under current law, a trial judge presiding over a case in which the death penalty is possible does not depart from the essential requirements of law by requiring the State to provide pretrial notice of the aggravators it intends to prove in the penalty phase. We also hold, however, that a judge does depart from the essential requirements of law by requiring a majority of jurors to agree that a particular aggravator applies. Such a requirement imposes a substantive burden on the state not contained in the statute and not required by Ring.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The defendant, Alfredie Steele, was indicted for first-degree murder with a firearm a crime for which the potential sentence is death. He filed a motion to have Florida's capital sentencing scheme declared unconstitutional under Ring. In a hearing on the motion, the trial court and respective counsel discussed Ring's potential effect on Florida's capital sentencing statute. Defense counsel acknowledged that in considering challenges based on Ring, this Court had not reversed any death sentences or held Florida's capital sentencing scheme constitutionally infirm.

The trial judge denied the motion to preclude imposition of the death penalty, but did impose several requirements to address concerns with Florida's scheme that our post-Ring decisions had left unresolved. The court required the State to provide advance notice of the aggravating factors on which it intended to rely if the case reached a penalty phase. The court also stated that she would submit to the jury a penalty-phase interrogatory verdict form that would require jurors to specify each aggravator found and the vote for that aggravator. The court's subsequent order ruled that the jury would be required to find each aggravator by majority vote.

The State filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Second District Court of Appeal, challenging the requirements of pretrial notice and a penalty-phase special verdict. The district court granted the petition in part and denied it in part. The court quashed that portion of the order requiring advance notice of the aggravating factors, relying on this Court's precedent holding that the list of aggravators provided in section 921.141(5), Florida Statutes (2004), is sufficient, and that Ring does not require specific pretrial notice. See Steele, 872 So.2d at 365. However, the court denied the petition as to the trial court's requirement of specific findings of aggravators on the verdict form. It concluded that "Florida law does not specifically prohibit a trial judge from using a special verdict form such as the one ordered here." Id. Anticipating that its ruling "could affect many cases that may ultimately be reviewed by" this Court, the court certified the foregoing questions of great public importance. Id. Its mandate was stayed pending our review.

II. ANALYSIS

This case comes to us on review of the district court's ruling on a petition for a writ of certiorari challenging a pretrial order in the circuit court. In certifying the two questions of great public importance, the district court appropriately applied the standard of review applicable to pretrial petitions for writ of certiorari—that is, whether the order constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. We have stated that

the phrase "departure from the essential requirements of law" should not be narrowly construed so as to apply only to violations which effectively deny appellate review or which pertain to the regularity of procedure. In granting writs of common-law certiorari, the district courts of appeal should not be as concerned with the mere existence of legal error as much as with the seriousness of the error. Since it is impossible to list all possible legal errors serious enough to constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law, the district courts must be allowed a large degree of discretion so that they may judge each case individually. The district courts should exercise this discretion only when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

It is this discretion which is the essential distinction between review by appeal and review by common-law certiorari. Combs v. State, 436 So.2d 93, 95-96 (Fla. 1983); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885, 889 (Fla.2003) (noting that "the departure from the essential requirements of the law necessary for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is something more than a simple legal error"); State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250, 254 (Fla. 1988) (concluding that although a pretrial ruling was in error, "we cannot say that the ruling was a departure from the essential requirements of law").

We now consider whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in (A) requiring the State to provide pretrial notice of the aggravators on which it would rely; and (B) requiring a special jury verdict form in which, before the jury could recommend a sentence of death, a majority would have to agree that a specific aggravator applied. Finally, in section (C), we compare the current scheme in Florida to those in the other states that impose the death penalty, and suggest revisions to our statute that would render Florida's scheme consistent with that of every other death penalty state.

A. Pretrial Notice of Aggravating Factors

The first certified question asks, Does a trial court depart from the essential requirements of law, in a death penalty case, by requiring the state to provide pre-guilt or pre-penalty phase notice of aggravating factors? The State argues that requiring advance notice of alleged aggravating factors conflicts with our prior holdings that advance notice of aggravators is not required. The State also argues that advance notice is unnecessary in light of the information provided through reciprocal discovery.

The State is correct that we have consistently held that the lack of notice of specific aggravating circumstances does not render a death sentence invalid. See Sireci v. State, 399 So.2d 964, 970 (Fla.1981), overruled on other grounds as recognized in Rutherford v. State, 545 So.2d 853, 856 (Fla.1989). In Hitchcock v. State, 413 So.2d 741, 746 (Fla.1982), we concluded that because "[t]he statutory language limits aggravating factors to those listed, . . . there is no reason to require the state to notify defendants of the aggravating factors that the state intends to prove." We reaffirmed this principle both before Ring, see Cox v. State, 819 So.2d 705, 725 (Fla. 2002); Vining v. State, 637 So.2d 921, 927 (Fla.1994), and after, see Kormondy v. State, 845 So.2d 41, 54 (Fla.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 950, 124 S.Ct. 392, 157 L.Ed.2d 283 (2003); Lynch v. State, 841...