Opinion ID: 1588823
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Capital Sentencing and Ring

Text: Gill contends that the death penalty was improperly imposed on him in violation of the principles announced in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). The Supreme Court in Ring held that a capital defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to a jury determination of all facts on which the Legislature conditions an increase in the maximum punishment. Id. at 589, 122 S.Ct. 2428. Gill's claim must fail. Gill waived a sentencing jury in this case and, because his waiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, he therefore waived any challenge to his sentencing based on Ring. See Bryant v. State, 901 So.2d 810, 822 (Fla.2005) (Because appellant requested and was granted a penalty phase conducted without a jury, he has not and cannot present a claim attacking the constitutionality of Florida's death penalty scheme under ... Ring.  (quoting Lynch v. State, 841 So.2d at 366 n. 1)). [18] Accordingly, relief is denied on this claim.