Case Name: Edward D. KENNEDY, Petitioner, v. Harry K. SINGLETARY, etc., et al., Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-07-16
Citations: 602 So. 2d 1285
Docket Number: No. 80129
Parties: Edward D. KENNEDY, Petitioner, v. Harry K. SINGLETARY, etc., et al., Respondent.
Judges: OVERTON, McDonald, GRIMES and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 602
Pages: 1285–1286

Head Matter:
Edward D. KENNEDY, Petitioner, v. Harry K. SINGLETARY, etc., et al., Respondent.
No. 80129.
Supreme Court of Florida.
July 16, 1992.
See also, 455 So.2d 351, 933 F.2d 905, 599 So.2d 991, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 3040, 120 L.Ed.2d 909.
Billy H. Ñolas and Julie D. Naylor, Oca-la, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Richard B. Martell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Edward D. Kennedy, a prisoner under sentence of death and the governor's death warrant, petitions this Court for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const.
The facts of Kennedy's crime and the procedural history of this case are recited in the prior opinions of this Court and the federal courts. Kennedy v. Dugger, 933 F.2d 905 (11th Cir.1991) (habeas), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 957, 117 L.Ed.2d 124 (1992); Kennedy v. Singletary, 599 So.2d 991 (Fla.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 3040, 120 L.Ed.2d 909 (1992); Kennedy v. State, 547 So.2d 912 (Fla.1989) (appeal 3.850); Kennedy v. Wainwright, 483 So.2d 424 (Fla.) (habeas), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 890, 107 S.Ct. 291, 93 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Kennedy v. State, 455 So.2d 351 (Fla.1984) (direct appeal), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1197, 105 S.Ct. 981, 83 L.Ed.2d 983 (1985).
We find that the issues raised by this petitioner have been litigated, or should have been litigated, in these prior proceedings and thus are proeedurally barred. There was no objection at trial made to the wording of the instruction on heinous, atrocious, or cruel. The objection went only to the applicability of that factor in this case. We also note that Kennedy's last petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was denied on the same date that the high Court issued Espinosa v. Florida, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 2926, 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992), upon which Kennedy now relies. We cannot conceive that the United States Supreme Court would have denied certiorari had it found a valid Espinosa claim in this case. In any event, even if not proeedurally barred, the error in giving the instruction and the error in the instruction's wording clearly are harmless beyond any reasonable doubt, in light of the entire record in this case. Ac cordingly, we deny the motion that this case be set for oral argument and find that Kennedy is entitled to no relief.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, McDonald, GRIMES and HARDING, JJ., concur.
KOGAN, J., concurs specially with an opinion.
NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED.