Case Name: Gregory MILLS, Petitioner, v. Michael W. MOORE, etc., Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-04-12
Citations: 786 So. 2d 532
Docket Number: No. SC01-338
Parties: Gregory MILLS, Petitioner, v. Michael W. MOORE, etc., Respondent.
Judges: WELLS, C.J., and HARDING, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 786
Pages: 532–547

Head Matter:
Gregory MILLS, Petitioner, v. Michael W. MOORE, etc., Respondent.
No. SC01-338.
Supreme Court of Florida.
April 12, 2001.
Todd G. Scher, Litigation Director, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Kenneth S. Nunnelley, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, FL, for Respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Gregory Mills, a prisoner under sentence of death, petitions this Court for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const. We deny Mills' petition for writ of habeas corpus for the reasons that follow.
Factual and Procedural History
In 1979, Petitioner was convicted of felony murder, aggravated battery, and burglary. The facts set forth by this Court in the opinion on direct appeal are as follows:
The evidence at the trial showed that Gregory Mills and his accomplice Vincent Ashley broke into the home of James and Margaret Wright in Sanford between two and three o'clock in the morning, intending to find something to steal. When James Wright woke up and left his bedroom to investigate, Mills shot him with a shotgun. Margaret Wright awakened in time to see one of the intruders run across her front yard to a bicycle lying under a tree. Mr. Wright died from loss of blood caused by multiple shotgun pellet wounds.
Ashley, seen riding his bicycle a few blocks from the Wright home, was stopped and detained by an officer on his way to the crime scene. Another officer saw a bicycle at the entrance to a nearby hospital emergency room, found Mills inside, and arrested him. At police headquarters officers questioned both men and conducted gunshot residue tests on them. They were then released.
At trial Mills' roommate testified that he and his girlfriend hid some shotgun shells that Mills had given them, that Mills had been carrying a firearm when he left the house the night of the murder, and that Mills had said he had shot someone. He also stated that Mills told him that a city worker had found a shotgun later shown to have fired an expended shell found near the victim's home.
After the murder, Ashley was arrested on some unrelated charges. He then learned that Mills had told his roommate and his girlfriend about the murder and that they in turn had told the police, so he decided to tell the police about the incident. Ashley testified that Mills entered the house (through a window) first, that he, Ashley, then handed the shotgun in to him, and that he then entered the house himself. Ashley saw that the man in the house had awakened and was getting up, so he exited the house and ran to his bicycle. Then he heard the shot and ran back to the house, where he saw Mills. They both departed the scene on their bicycles, taking separate routes. Ashley was granted immunity from prosecution for these crimes and also for several unrelated charges pending against him at the time he decided to confess and cooperate.
Mills testified in his defense. He said that he arrived home from work on May 24 at about 9:30 p.m. Then he went out, first to one bar, then another, playing pool and socializing. He went home af-terwards but could not sleep, he said, because of a toothache and a headache, so he went to the hospital emergency room. There police officers took him into custody.
Mills v. State, 476 So.2d 172, 174-75 (Fla.1985). After finding Mills guilty of first-degree murder, burglary, and aggravated battery, and with the knowledge that the State granted immunity to Mills' codefend-ant Ashley who testified against Mills, the jury recommended a sentence of life imprisonment.
Before sentencing Mills the trial court ordered and considered a presentence investigation. The trial court, the State, and Mills were provided copies of the presen-tence investigation report in January, 1980. In April, 1980, before sentencing, the trial court heard further presentations from the parties regarding the appropriate sentence.
At trial, the jury heard evidence of four aggravators: (1) that the crime was committed by a person under a sentence of imprisonment; (2) that Mills had a previous conviction of a violent felony (aggravated assault); (3) that the murder was committed in the course of a felony based on the contemporaneous conviction for burglary and (4) that the murder was heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC). After the presentence hearing, however, the trial judge found six aggravating factors, including two that were not argued by the State to the jury: (1) that the murder involved great risk of death to many persons; and (2) that the murder was committed for pecuniary gain.
On direct appeal, we struck three of the aggravators: great risk of death to many persons (State conceded it was improper); pecuniary gain (because of improper doubling based on the burglary conviction); and heinous, atrocious or cruel (because we could not reconcile this aggravator with Teffeteller v. State, 439 So.2d 840 (Fla.1983), which was the same factual situation and in which HAC was not found). See Mills v. State, 476 So.2d 172, 178 (Fla.1985). However, we affirmed the death sentence based upon the three remaining aggravators (all of which the jury considered).
We affirmed the trial court's jury override and specifically found that the jury override in this case met the requirements of Tedder v. State, 322 So.2d 908 (Fla.1975) (a jury's recommendation of life should be given great weight and should be followed unless the facts suggesting a sentence of death are so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ). We said:
We hold that the trial judge's findings in support of the sentence of death even without the finding of especially heinous, atrocious and cruel, meet the Tedder standard. We find that the facts suggesting a sentence of death are so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ. There are three valid statutory aggravating circumstances, and the trial judge has found there are no valid mitigating circumstances. The purported mitigating circumstances claimed by Mills, but not found by the trial judge, are not sufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances nor do they establish a reasonable basis for the jury's recommendation. We conclude that the imposition of a sentence of death after a jury recommendation of life was proper in this case.
Mills, 476 So.2d at 179.
The trial court summarily denied Mills' first petition for postconviction relief, and we reversed and remanded for evidentiary hearing. Mills v. Dugger, 559 So.2d 578 (Fla.1990). The trial court held an eviden-tiary hearing and again denied postconviction relief, and Mills appealed. Mills argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failure to develop and present evidence regarding statutory and nonstatutory mental health mitigators. We agreed with the trial court that trial counsel did not fall short of the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), for effectiveness of counsel and said:
"A defendant's mental condition is not necessarily at issue in every criminal proceeding." Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 82, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 1096, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985). None of Mills' original attorneys had any idea that his mental health might be at issue. Current counsel's getting those attorneys to admit that they would, today, routinely pursue evidence for the mental health mitigators illustrates the Supreme Court's concern "that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065. "That current counsel, through hindsight, would now do things differently than original counsel did is not the test for ineffectiveness." Stano v. State, 520 So.2d 278, 281 n. 5 (Fla.1988).
Mills v. State, 603 So.2d 482, 485 (Fla.1992). Mills then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied on procedural grounds. Mills v. Singletary, 606 So.2d 622 (Fla.1992). He then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. The Eleventh Circuit Comí of Appeals presented a detailed procedural history of this case in Mills v. Singletary, 161 F.3d 1273, 1278-80 (11th Cir.1998). In short, we affirmed Mills' convictions and death sentence on direct appeal, 476 So.2d 172, denied his state habeas petition and reversal of denial of his state petition for postconviction relief, 559 So.2d 578, affirmed the second denial of his state petition for postconviction relief, 603 So.2d 482, and denied his state petition for extraordinary relief and for writ of habeas corpus, 606 So.2d 622. Thereafter, Mills sought federal habeas relief. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, No. 92-1184-Civ-ORL-19, Patricia C. Fawsett, J., denied the petition. Mills appealed. Mills v. Singletary, 161 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir.1998). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the de nial of federal habeas relief. Id.
On March 27, 2001, Mills filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. Mills makes two arguments: (1) Florida's death penalty override scheme, under which Mills was sentenced to death, violates the principle espoused in the recent decision by the United States Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and therefore violates the United States and Florida constitutions; and (2) this Court's recent decision in Keen v. State, 775 So.2d 263 (Fla.2000), indicates Tedder was arbitrarily applied in this case.
The Apprendi Issue
In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the Supreme Court announced the general rule that "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Id., 120 S.Ct. at 2362-63. The Court specifically stated in the majority opinion that Apprendi does not apply to already challenged capital sentencing schemes that have been deemed constitutional. The Court stated:
Finally, this Court has previously considered and rejected the argument that the principles guiding our decision today render invalid state capital sentencing schemes requiring judges, after a jury verdict holding a defendant guilty of a capital crime, to find specific aggravating factors before imposing a sentence of death. For reasons we have explained, the capital cases are not controlling:
"Neither the cases cited, nor any other case, permits a judge to determine the existence of a factor which makes a crime a capital offense. What the cited cases hold is that, once a jury has found the defendant guilty of all the elements of an offense which carries as its maximum penalty the sentence of death, it may be left to the judge to decide whether that maximum penalty, rather than a lesser one, ought to be imposed.... The person who is charged with actions that expose him or her to the death penalty has an absolute entitlement to jury trial on all the elements of the charge."
Id., 120 S.Ct. at 2366 (citations omitted). And one justice, in a separate concurring opinion, indicated that issue was left to be decided in the future. Id., 120 S.Ct. at 2380 (Thomas, J. concurring).
The Court was referring to its earlier decision in Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 110 S.Ct. 3047, 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990), wherein it addressed a capital sentencing scheme and held that the presence of an aggravating circumstance in a capital case may constitutionally be determined by a judge rather than a jury. Id. at 647-48, 110 S.Ct. 3047. Because Apprendi did not overrule Walton, the basic scheme in Florida is not overruled either.
Mills argues that Apprendi overruled Walton and relies upon the five-to-four split in the Court. Four justices stated in dissent that Apprendi effectively overruled Walton, and another justice in his concurring opinion stated that reconsideration of Walton was left for another day. With the majority of the justices refusing to disturb the rule of law announced in Walton, it is still the law and it is not within this Court's authority to overrule Walton in anticipation of any future Supreme Court action. The Supreme Court has specifically directed lower courts to "leav[e] to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions." Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 237, 117 S.Ct. 1997, 138 L.Ed.2d 391 (1997) (quoting Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484, 109 S.Ct. 1917, 104 L.Ed.2d 526 (1989)). The majority opinion in Ap-prendi forecloses Mills' claim because Apprendi preserves the constitutionality of capital sentencing schemes like Florida's. Therefore, on its face, Apprendi is inapplicable to this case.
No court has extended Apprendi to capital sentencing schemes, and the plain language of Apprendi indicates that the case is not intended to apply to capital schemes. See State v. Hoskins, 199 Ariz. 127, 14 P.3d 997, 1016 (2000) (noting Apprendi did not apply to capital sentencing schemes and did not overrule Walton); Weeks v. State, 761 A.2d 804, 806 (Del. 2000) (en banc) ("[W]e are not persuaded that Apprendi's reach extends to 'state capital sentencing schemes' in which judges are required to find 'specific aggravating factors before imposing a sentence of death.' "), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 476, 148 L.Ed.2d 478 (2000); State v. Golphin, 352 N.C. 364, 533 S.E.2d 168, 193-94 (2000) ("The United States Supreme Court's recent opinion in Ap-prendi . does not affect our prior holdings regarding the inclusion of aggravating circumstances in an indictment.... [A]n indictment need not contain the aggravating circumstances the State will use to seek the death penalty . "), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 1379, 149 L.Ed.2d 305 (2001). Importantly, in Weeks v. Delaware, a capital defendant brought his second habeas petition on October 27, 2000, alleging an Apprendi violation and seeking a stay of his execution which was set for November 17, 2000. The trial court ruled that Apprendi did not apply to Weeks' case. Weeks appealed and the trial court's ruling was affirmed. On November 16, 2000, just one day before the scheduled execution, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Weeks v. Delaware, — U.S.-, 121 S.Ct. 476, 148 L.Ed.2d 478 (2000). The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari indicates that the Court meant what it said when it held that Apprendi was not intended to affect capital sentencing schemes.
Mills makes two additional arguments that are fact-specific to his case. First, he argues that the statute in effect at the time of the initial trial made the maximum penalty for his crime life imprisonment. Only after the jury verdict and further sentencing proceedings, Mills argues, could death be a possible sentence. This particular scheme, Mills argues, puts the sentence of death outside of the maximum penalty available and triggers Ap-prendi protection.
With regard to the statute in effect at the time of trial, Mills cites section 775.082(1), Florida Statutes (1979), which provided:
A person who has been convicted of a capital felony shall be punished by life imprisonment and shall be required to serve no less than 25 years before becoming eligible for parole unless the proceeding held to determine sentence according to the procedure set forth in s. 921.141 results in finding by the court that such person shall be punished by death, and in the latter event such person shall be punished by death.
§ 775.082(1) Fla. Stat. (1979). Mills argues that this statute makes life imprisonment the maximum penalty available. Mills argues that the statute allowing the judge to override the jury's recommendation makes it clear that the maximum possible penalty is life imprisonment unless and until the judge holds a separate hearing and finds that the defendant is death eligible.
The plain language of section 775.082(1) is clear that the maximum penalty available for a person convicted of a capital felony is death. When section 775.082(1) is read in pari materia with section 921.141, Florida Statutes, there can be no doubt that a person convicted of a capital felony faces a maximum possible penalty of death. Both sections 775.082 and 921.141 clearly refer to a "capital felony." Black's Law Dictionary defines "capital" as "punishable by execution; involving the death penalty." Black's Law Dictionary 200 (7th ed.1999). Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines "capital" as "punishable by death . involving execution." Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 169 (10th ed.1998). Therefore, a "capital felony" is by definition a felony that may be punishable by death. The maximum possible penalty described in the capital sentencing scheme is clearly death.
Mills is actually attacking the validity of the bifurcated guilt and sentencing phases of a capital trial. That issue was litigated and decided in Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 96 S.Ct. 2960, 49 L.Ed.2d 913 (1976), and Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 110 S.Ct. 3047, 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990). The Apprendi majority clearly did not revisit these rulings.
As for Mills' second argument, Mills argues that the trial judge actually considered additional aggravating factors not presented to the jury. This consideration, Mills argues, violates Apprendi's requirement that the jury be the trier of fact for all elements of the crime charged.
First, any error that might have occurred when the trial judge considered evidence that the jury did not hear would be harmless in this case because the additional aggravators that the trial judge found were struck by this Court on direct appeal and not considered in any way when wé affirmed the death sentence on direct appeal. Furthermore, the evidence supporting the pecuniary gain aggravating factor was in fact heard by the jury because it was based on Mills' contemporaneous burglary conviction/
The essence of this argument was raised and decided on direct appeal. Mills argued on direct appeal that the State's presentation of evidence on two additional aggravators invalidated the judge's override. On direct appeal as to the penalty phase, Mills challenged the constitutionality of Florida's capital felony sentencing law, argued that the court found improper aggravating circumstances, argued that the trial court failed to consider certain mitigating evidence, and argued that the trial court failed to give appropriate consideration to the jury's recommendation of life imprisonment. Mills, 476 So.2d at 177-79. In his brief on direct appeal, Mills argued that the State may not reserve additional evidence for the judge's consideration alone after the jury's recommendation. Relying on Presnell v. Georgia, 439 U.S. 14, 99 S.Ct. 235, 58 L.Ed.2d 207 (1978), Mills argued that as a matter of due process, he was entitled to have the existence and validity of aggravating circumstances determined as they were placed before the jury. To allow a "post-jury" determination of aggravating circumstances would deprive him the right of due process and deny him his right to trial by jury. Mills also argued that post-jury determinations of aggravating circumstances would destroy the trifurcated sentencing procedures then in place.
Although we did not address this argument vrath specificity in Mills' direct appeal, we (jid address' Mills' broader claim that the trial court failed to give appropriate consideration to the jury's recommendation of life imprisonment. On this claim we stated the issue was properly evaluated under Tedder, See Mills, 476 So.2d at 179. Mills' second Apprendi claim, although framed a different way, was raised and decided on direct appeal. It is therefore procedurally -barred. See Harvey v. Dugger, 656 So.2d 1253 (Fla.1995); Rivera v. Dugger, 629 So.2d 105 (Fla.1993); Mendyk v. State, 592 So.2d 1076 (Fla.1992).
The Tedder/Keen Issue
Mills' second argument is that Tedder v. State, 322 So.2d 908 (Fla.1975), which allows the trial judge to override a jury recommendation in capital cases, was arbitrarily applied in this case based on the language used in Keen v. State, 775 So.2d 263 (Fla.2000). In Tedder we said, "In order to sustain a sentence of death following a jury recommendation of life, the facts suggesting a sentence of death should be so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ." Id. at 910. In Keen, on the defendant's direct appeal following his third trial, we applied the Tedder analysis. In applying Tedder we emphasized the fact that a trial court's analysis in an override situation should focus on the record evidence supporting the jury's recommendation and should not be the same weighing process that is used when the jury recommends death.
While conceding that Keen is not new law, Mills nonetheless argues that Keen's application of Tedder constitutes a new standard by which jury override cases are reviewed. Keen is not a major constitutional change or jurisprudential upheaval of the law as it was espoused in Tedder. Keen offers no new or different standard for considering jury overrides on appeal. Thus, we disagree with Mills' contention that Keen offers a new standard of law and we reject the contention that Keen was anything more than an application of our long-standing Tedder analysis.
Tedder is the seminal case in Florida on jury overrides and remains so after Keen. Tedder was applied to this case. Keen provides no basis for our reconsideration of this issue. For these reasons, we deny Mills' petition for writ of habeas corpus.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and HARDING, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
HARDING, J., concurs with an opinion, in which WELLS, C.J., and LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
ANSTEAD, J., dissents with an opinion, in which SHAW and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
PARIENTE, J., dissents with an opinion, in which SHAW and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
. On appeal of the denial of his federal habe-as corpus petition, Mills argued, as he does in the second issue of this instant proceeding, that the trial court's jury override resulted in an arbitrary and discriminatory sentence and would not have been sustained on direct appeal today. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed and held that we "complied with the mandate of Tedder " in the direct appeal, and that Mills' claim was a disguised request for another proportionality review. Id. at 1238.
. Apprendi involved a New Jersey statute that authorized an enhanced penalty for a crime proven to be a "hate crime" if the judge found by a preponderance of the evidence that the crime was motivated by a purpose to intimidate an individual or group because of race, color, gender, handicap, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity. The defendant in Apprendi was not charged with a "hate crime" in the indictment. He pled guilty on three counts, and the judge enhanced the penalty on one of the counts beyond the statutory maximum, in accord with the "hate crime" enhancement statute, after he held a hearing to determine the "purpose" of the crime.
. Florida's sentencing scheme was originally upheld in Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 96 S.Ct. 2960, 49 L.Ed.2d 913 (1976), which observed that the jury's recommendation is advisory only and that the sentence is to be determined by the judge, and held that jury sentencing is not constitutionally required.
. Section 921.141, Florida Statutes (1979), provides:
Upon conviction or adjudication of guilt of a defendant of a capital felony, the court shall conduct a separate sentencing proceeding to determine whether the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment as authorized by s. 775.082. (3) . Notwithstanding the recommendation of a majority of the jury, the court, after weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, shall enter a sentence of life imprisonment or death....
. The only additional evidence presented at the presentencing hearing was the presen-tence investigation report and certified copies of various criminal convictions. Mills argued that he had no significant criminal history in support of mitigation. The trial judge specifically indicated that the evidence of criminal convictions and the information contained in the presentence investigation report was only considered for purposes of mitigation (i.e. to rebut Mills' claim of no significant criminal history) and not as an aggravating factor. Indeed, the two additional aggravating factors the trial court found were unrelated to the evidence received at the presentencing hearing.