Case Name: Jesse Joseph TAFERO, Petitioner, v. Richard L. DUGGER, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-02-26
Citations: 520 So. 2d 287
Docket Number: No. 71946
Parties: Jesse Joseph TAFERO, Petitioner, v. Richard L. DUGGER, Respondent.
Judges: OVERTON, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 520
Pages: 287–291

Head Matter:
Jesse Joseph TAFERO, Petitioner, v. Richard L. DUGGER, Respondent.
No. 71946.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Feb. 26, 1988.
Bruce Rogow, Nova University Law Center, Ft. Lauderdale, and Larry Helm Spald-ing, Capital Collateral Representative and Mark Evan Olive, Chief Asst., Capital Collateral Representative, Office of the Capital Collateral Representative, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Joy B. Shearer and Richard G. Bartmon, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

Opinion:
McDONALD, Chief Justice.
The governor recently signed Tafero's second death warrant, following which Tafero filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const. We deny both the petition and the request for stay of execution.
Tafero has a lengthy history in the courts. After a jury found him guilty of first-degree murder, among other things, the trial court sentenced Tafero to death, and this Court affirmed both the conviction and sentence. Tafero v. State, 403 So.2d 355 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 983, 102 S.Ct. 1492, 71 L.Ed.2d 694 (1982). Later, this Court denied Tafero's motion for leave to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Tafero v. State, 440 So.2d 350 (Fla.1983). After the signing of his first death warrant, Tafero moved for post-conviction relief; this Court affirmed the trial court's denial of that relief. Tafero v. State, 459 So.2d 1034 (Fla.1984). The federal courts stayed his execution, but ultimately denied Tafero relief on his federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. Tafero v. Wainwright, 796 F.2d 1314 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 3277, 97 L.Ed.2d 782 (1987). Finally, we recently affirmed the trial court's denial of Tafero's second motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Tafero v. State, no. 70,422 (Fla. Dec. 23, 1987).
In this petition Tafero claims that he is entitled to relief under Hitchcock v. Dugger, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 1821, 95 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987). He argues that the trial judge believed the mitigating circumstances which could be considered were restricted to those listed in subsection 921.141(6), Florida Statutes (1975), that the judge therefore restricted both his consideration and the jury's to the statutory list, and that the prosecutor reinforced that limitation on mitigating evidence. Tafero has raised the restricted consideration of mitigating evidence before, and those claims have been denied. 459 So.2d at 1036; 796 F.2d at 1321-22. Again, even though now wrapped in the cloak of Hitchcock, we find no merit to the claim.
Tafero presented no evidence, whether statutory or nonstatutory, to mitigate his sentence. This waiver has been considered and found valid numerous times. 403 So.2d at 362. See 459 So.2d at 1036; 796 F.2d at 1319-20.
Tafero also now claims that, even though he presented no evidence at sentencing, the judge and jury could have gleaned certain nonstatutory mitigating evidence from the guilt phase. This "evidence" includes residual doubt about the extent of Tafero's participation in the crime and his guilt, the disparate treatment of Tafero's co-defendants, and Tafero's being a father.
Tafero's lawyer deliberately did not argue mitigating circumstances. This has been found to be based on tactical decisions. 459 So.2d 1034, 1036. To suggest now that his strategy and argument would have been different if the judge had specifically informed the jury it could consider nonstatutory mitigating circumstances is at best speculative. Suggesting that the jury's recommendation or the judge's order would be different is contrary to reason.
Given the four valid aggravating circumstances and the weakness of this mitigating evidence, we are convinced that the jury would have recommended, and the judge would have imposed, a death sentence even if all concerned knew that presentation and consideration of nonstatutory mitigating evidence was unlimited. Ford v. State, 522 So.2d 345 (Fla.1988); Booker v. Dugger, 520 So.2d 246 (Fla.1988); Delap v. Dugger, 513 So.2d 659 (Fla.1987). Because of these facts, Tafero's waiver of presenting and arguing mitigating evidence, and the overwhelming evidence of guilt and substantial aggravating factors, we find that any Hitchcock error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Tafero also claims that the trial court improperly diminished the jurors' sense of responsibility in sentencing in violation of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985). Caldwell is not a change in the law which will justify postconviction relief. Ford v. State; Foster v. State, 518 So.2d 901 (Fla.1987). Tafero is, therefore, procedurally barred from raising this claim in this proceeding.
We deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus as well as the request for stay of execution.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
KOGAN, J., concurs specially with an opinion.
BARKETT, J., dissents with an opinion.
.Residual or lingering doubt is not an appropriate mitigating circumstance. King v. State, 514 So.2d 354 (Fla.1987). We have unequivocally held that Tafero did the killing.
. This has been considered before. 403 So.2d at 362; 459 So.2d at 1037; 796 F.2d at 1321.
. This, too, has been considered previously. 796 F.2d at 1321.