[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-14715

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cv-00148-MCR

RONALD PALMER HEATH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(June 11, 2013)

Before: TJOFLAT, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Case: 12-14715 Date Filed: 06/11/2013 Page: 1 of 6 
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Palmer Heath is a Florida death row inmate awaiting execution. A 

jury found him guilty of the May 1989 first-degree murder and armed robbery of 

Michael Sheridan1in Alachua County, Florida, and recommended that the trial 

 

1

 The Florida Supreme Court described the crime, thus:

Heath and his live-in girlfriend, Penny Powell, traveled to the Jacksonville 

home of Heath’s grandmother. After an argument with Heath, Powell returned to 

Douglas, Georgia, where she and Heath lived. Heath and his younger brother, 

Kenneth, drove to Gainesville to visit some of Heath’s friends. On May 24, 1989, 

the brothers went to the Purple Porpoise Lounge in Gainesville where two of 

Heath’s friends worked as waitresses. Sometime during the evening the brothers 

struck up a conversation with Sheridan, a traveling salesman who had come to the 

lounge for drinks and dinner. Sheridan bought the brothers a drink and inquired if 

they ever got high or had any marijuana. Heath suggested to Kenneth that they 

take Sheridan somewhere and rob him; Kenneth agreed. The trio left the bar in 

Kenneth’s vehicle, which Heath drove to an isolated area of Alachua County. 

After parking on a dirt road, all three got out of the car and smoked marijuana. 

Heath made the hand motion of a pistol and asked Kenneth, “Did you get it?”

Kenneth retrieved a small-caliber handgun from under the car seat, pointed it at 

Sheridan, and told him that he was being robbed. Sheridan balked at giving the 

brothers anything. Heath told Kenneth to shoot Sheridan. When Sheridan lunged 

at Kenneth, Kenneth shot him in the chest. Sheridan sat down, saying “it hurt.” 

As Sheridan began to remove his possessions, Heath kicked him and stabbed him 

in the neck with a hunting knife. Heath attempted to slit Sheridan’s throat, but 

was unable to complete the task with the dull knife and could only saw at 

Sheridan’s neck. Heath then instructed Kenneth to kill Sheridan with the gun, and 

Kenneth shot him twice in the head. The brothers moved the body further into the 

woods. After returning to the Purple Porpoise, the brothers took Sheridan’s rental 

car to a remote area, removed some items, and burned the car. 

The next day the brothers used Sheridan’s credit cards to purchase clothes, 

shoes, and other items at a Gainesville mall. . . . The brothers returned to 

Jacksonville and tossed the handgun into the St. John’s River. The handgun was 

never recovered. Heath eventually returned to the trailer which he shared with 

Powell [his girlfriend] in Georgia.

Heath v. State, 648 So. 2d 660, 662, 19 Fla. L. Weekly S540 (1994).

Case: 12-14715 Date Filed: 06/11/2013 Page: 2 of 6 
3

court sentence him to death. The court, finding the State had established two

aggravating circumstances2beyond a reasonable doubt and that those 

circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances shown by the evidence, 

followed the jury’s recommendation and sentenced Heath to death. After 

exhausting his state remedies on direct appeal3and collateral attack,4 Heath

petitioned the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida for a 

writ of habeas corpus. The District Court denied his petition, Heath v. Tucker, No. 

1:09-cv-00148-MCR, at *62 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2012), and issued a certificate of 

appealability (“COA”) with respect to the following issues:

Whether the jury trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment and/or the 

Indictment Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the states 

through the Fourteenth Amendment, require that capital aggravating 

factors must be found by the grand jury and charged in the indictment 

in a state capital prosecution.5

 

2

Fla. Stat. 921.141(5)(b), “The defendant was previously convicted of another capital 

felony or of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person.” Heath was previously 

convicted of second-degree murder. Heath, 648 So. 2d at 663. Fla. Stat. 921.141(5)(d), “The 

capital felony was committed while the defendant was engaged, or was an accomplice, in the 

commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit, any: 

robbery” [or other violent felony]. The trial court found that “the murder was committed during 

the course of an armed robbery.” Heath, 648 So. 2d at 663.

3

See Heath, 648 So. 2d at 666 (affirming convictions and death sentence); cert. denied, 

Heath v. Florida, 515 U.S. 1162, 115 S. Ct. 2618, 132 L. Ed. 2d 860 (1995). 

4

See Heath v. State, 3 So. 3d 1017, 34 Fla. Weekly S95 (2009) (affirming denial of 

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion).

5

The relevant part of the Fifth Amendment is: “No person shall be held to answer for a 

capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury

. . . .” U.S. Const. amend. V. The relevant part of the Sixth Amendment is: “In all criminal 

prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of 

Case: 12-14715 Date Filed: 06/11/2013 Page: 3 of 6 
4

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 r 

(“AEDPA”), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), 

a federal court may not grant habeas relief on a claim previously adjudicated in 

state court unless the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an 

unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the 

Supreme Court of the United States,” or “was based on an unreasonable 

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court 

proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The statutory phrase “clearly established 

Federal law” refers only to “the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme] 

Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” Williams v. 

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 1523, 146 L. Ed. 2d 389 (2000). A 

state court decision is “contrary to” such law “if the state court arrives at a 

conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or 

if the state court decides a case differently than [the Supreme] Court has on a set of 

materially indistinguishable facts.” Id. at 412–13.

In Grim v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 705 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2013), this 

court faced the same issues the District Court posed in the COA it issued in this 

 

the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . and to be informed of the 

nature and cause of the accusation. . . .” U.S. Const. amend. VI. 

Case: 12-14715 Date Filed: 06/11/2013 Page: 4 of 6 
5

case.

6

 Addressing the first issue—whether the Florida Supreme Court’s decision 

rejecting Grim’s claim that the Sixth Amendment required that his indictment 

“specify . . . which aggravating circumstances [the State] would rely on in seeking 

the death penalty,” id. at 1288, was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable 

application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent—the panel held for the 

State. The panel did so because (1) Grim was unable to provide a Supreme Court 

holding requiring that the indictment specify the aggravating circumstances, and 

(2) it was “unaware of a Supreme Court holding that even addresses the issue.” Id.

at 1289. And this is true today.

The Grim panel held that the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v. City 

of Chicago, — U.S. —, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3035 n.13, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010), 

resolved the second issue—whether the Fifth Amendment’s indictment clause 

requires that the aggravating circumstances be found by the grand jury and charged 

in the indictment. Grim, 705 F.3d at 1287. The “‘Fifth Amendment’s grand jury 

indictment requirement’ is not applicable to the States.” Id. (quoting McDonald, 

130 S. Ct. at 3035 n.13). 

 

6

 The COAs in Grim and the instant case contain the exact same language. Compare

Grim v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 705 F.3d 1284, 1286 (11th Cir. 2013), with Heath v. Tucker, 

No. 1:09-cv-00148-MCR, at *62 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2012). As a result, the holdings from Grim

control the instant case.

Case: 12-14715 Date Filed: 06/11/2013 Page: 5 of 6 
6

In light of these holdings, the judgment of the District Court denying 

Heath’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-14715 Date Filed: 06/11/2013 Page: 6 of 6