Opinion ID: 1697955
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proportionality Claim

Text: Trotter next contends that the 1993 resentencing order is deficient and that the death sentence is not proportional. These arguments were not preserved below and are procedurally barred because we considered them on direct appeal from Trotter's resentencing. See Trotter, 690 So.2d at 1236 n. 8, 1237 (denying without discussion Trotter's claim that resentencing order was deficient as meritless). Further, this Court considers the question of proportionality in each death penalty case on direct review of the sentence, even when we do not directly address the issue in the written opinion. See Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 380 (Fla.2004) ([P]roportionality review is inherent in this Court's direct appellate review and the issue is considered regardless of whether it is discussed in the opinion or raised by a party . . . .); see also Anderson v. State, 841 So.2d 390, 407 (Fla. 2003) (Due to the uniqueness of the penalty, this Court addresses the propriety of all death sentences in a proportionality review.); Fla. R.App. P. 9.142(a)(6) (In death penalty cases, whether or not insufficiency of the evidence or proportionality is an issue presented for review, the court shall review these issues and, if necessary, remand for the appropriate relief.).