Case Name: Frank Elijah SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1990-02-08
Citations: 556 So. 2d 1096
Docket Number: No. 75450
Parties: Frank Elijah SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 556
Pages: 1096–1097

Head Matter:
Frank Elijah SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 75450.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Feb. 8, 1990.
Larry Helm Spalding, Capital Collateral Representative, and Billy H. Ñolas, Chief Asst. CCR, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Frank Elijah Smith, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the denial of relief on his second motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We have jurisdiction. Art. Y, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
The facts of this case are fully discussed in the prior appeals and collateral challenges involving this appellant. Smith v. Dugger, 888 F.2d 94 (11th Cir.1989), petition for cert. filed, No. 89-6347 (U.S. Dec. 29, 1989); Smith v. Dugger, 840 F.2d 787 (11th Cir.1988); Smith v. State, 457 So.2d 1380 (Fla.1984); Smith v. State, 424 So.2d 726 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1145, 103 S.Ct. 3129, 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983). This appeal presents only a single issue that is not procedurally barred.
Smith argues that the instruction given by the trial court in this instance, combined with other circumstances of the case, violated the teachings of Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393, 107 S.Ct. 1821, 95 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987). As the state conceded at argument, the trial court's jury instruction in this instance facially violated Hitchcock by failing to inform the jury that it could consider any and all mitigating evidence submitted by the defense. The question remaining is whether this error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
We have reviewed the record in its entirety and are convinced that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to Smith's sentence. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986). Thus, the state has met its burden of proving harmless error. The facts of this murder, which are discussed at length in the prior cases involving this appellant, disclose a heinous and calculated abduction, sequestration and rape of the victim. After the rape, the victim then was transported to an isolated location and slain execution-style. An overwhelming body of aggravating factors was found by the trial court and sustained by this Court on direct appeal. We can entertain no reasonable doubt that the result of the sentencing hearing would not have been different had the jury heard the proper instruction and considered any available mitigating evidence.
The order of the court below is affirmed. We find all other issues raised by Smith to be procedurally barred. The consolidated application for stay of execution and motion for stay of execution pending filing and disposition of a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court is denied.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
BARKETT, J., dissents with an opinion.
NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ENTERTAINED BY THIS COURT.