Case Name: Freddie Lee HALL, Petitioner, v. Richard L. DUGGER, etc., Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-05-12
Citations: 531 So. 2d 76
Docket Number: No. 71284
Parties: Freddie Lee HALL, Petitioner, v. Richard L. DUGGER, etc., Respondent.
Judges: MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 531
Pages: 76–79

Head Matter:
Freddie Lee HALL, Petitioner, v. Richard L. DUGGER, etc., Respondent.
No. 71284.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 12, 1988.
Rehearing Denied July 20, 1988.
David I. Bruck of Bruck & Blume, Columbia, S.C., for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Freddie Lee Hall, a prisoner under sentence of death, petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to sections 3(b)(1) and 3(b)(9) of article V of the state constitution and deny the petition.
A jury convicted Hall of first-degree murder and recommended that he be sentenced to death, which the trial court did. This Court affirmed both the conviction and sentence. Hall v. State, 403 So.2d 1321 (Fla.1981). After the signing of his death warrant, Hall filed a motion for post-conviction relief. We affirmed the trial court's denial of that motion. Hall v. State, 420 So.2d 872 (Fla.1982). On petition for writ of habeas corpus the federal district court denied relief. Hall v. Wainwright, 565 F.Supp. 1222 (M.D.Fla.1983). The eleventh circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's decision and remanded for a hearing. Hall v. Wainwright, 733 F.2d 766 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1107, 105 S.Ct. 2344, 85 L.Ed.2d 858 (1985). On remand the district court denied relief, and the circuit court affirmed. Hall v. Wainwright, 805 F.2d 945 (11th Cir.1986). Hall recently sought certiorari review in the United States Supreme Court based on Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 383, 107 S.Ct. 1821, 95 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), which that Court denied. Hall v. Dugger, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 248, 98 L.Ed.2d 206 (1987).
In the instant petition Hall argues that he should receive a new sentencing proceeding under Hitchcock because the trial judge limited his consideration, and that of the jury, to the statutorily enumerated mitigating circumstances. Hall's trial took place very shortly before the filing of Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978). As Hall points out now, his trial court instructed the jury only on the statutory mitigating factors and made no reference to nonstatutory mitigation. We find any error, however, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Hall argues that the following nonstat-utory mitigating evidence should have been considered: 1) his not being the triggerman and his testimony that he did not intend the victim's death; 2) his attempt to dissuade his accomplice from beating and killing the victim; 3) his taking the police to the body and voluntarily admitting his involvement; 4) his use of alcohol and drugs; 5) his offering no resistance when arrested; and 6) the weakness of the evidence not foreclosing doubts as to his guilt. Hall presented this evidence through his testimony at sentencing, so the jury and judge heard it. Suggesting that this evidence would have made a difference to the judge or jury, who also heard Hall testify that the twenty-one-year old, seven-month pregnant victim was on her knees begging for her life when she was shot, is speculative at best. When balanced against the aggravating factors, this nonstatutory mitigating evidence is very weak. Even if this evidence had been considered, and instructed upon, we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that it would have been given little weight and that Hall's sentence would have been no different. Tafero v. Dugger, 520 So.2d 287 (Fla.1988); 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). We hold, therefore, that no relief is warranted under Hitchcock, and we deny the petition for habeas corpus.
It is so ordered.
MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
KOGAN, J., dissents with an opinion, in which SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
. Hall raised the same claim under Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978), in the federal courts, which found it to have no merit. Hall v. Wainwright, 565 F.Supp. 1222, 1242-43 (M.D.Fla.1983); Hall v. Wainwright, 733 F.2d 766, 774-75 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1107, 105 S.Ct. 2344, 85 L.Ed.2d 858 (1985). As stated in the text, the United States Supreme Court denied review on a Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 383, 107 S.Ct. 1821, 95 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), claim, so the instant case is the first time this claim has been examined under Hitchcock.
. The trial court found three aggravating factors: prior conviction of violent felony; committed during kidnapping and robbery; and heinous, atrocious, or cruel.
. The sentencer determines the weight to be accorded evidence at sentencing. Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982); Hall v. Wainwright, 733 F.2d at 775. See Stano v. State, 460 So.2d 890 (Fla. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1111, 105 S.Ct. 2347, 85 L.Ed.2d 863 (1985).