Opinion ID: 1842460
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury Instructions for the HAC and CCP Aggravators

Text: Arbelaez argued in his 3.850 motion that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the jury instructions for the heinous, atrocious or cruel (HAC) and cold, calculated and premeditated (CCP) aggravating factors as being unconstitutionally vague. Arbelaez, 775 So.2d at 919 n. 8. We rejected this claim as procedurally barred because [o]n direct appeal, Arbelaez did not challenge the vagueness of the HAC and CCP instructions, but only the applicability of these factors to his case. Id. (citing Arbelaez, 626 So.2d at 176-77). Arbelaez now reformulates his argument as a claim for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. There is no question that the standard HAC jury instructions in effect at the time of Arbelaez's trial were unconstitutionally vague under the holding of Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079, 112 S.Ct. 2926, 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992), and the standard CCP instructions were unconstitutionally vague under the holding of Jackson v. State, 648 So.2d 85 (Fla.1994). Both Espinosa and Jackson, however, were decided after the trial in Arbelaez's case. Arbelaez did not object to the content of the HAC or CCP instructions at trial. Arbelaez, 775 So.2d at 919 n. 8. For this reason alone, the vagueness of those instructions could not have been raised by Arbelaez's counsel on appeal. This Court has repeatedly held that [t]he contemporaneous objection rule applies to Espinosa error, i.e., a specific objection on the form of the instruction must be made to the trial court to preserve the issue for appeal. Hodges v. State, 619 So.2d 272, 273 (Fla.), cert. denied 510 U.S. 996, 114 S.Ct. 560, 126 L.Ed.2d 460 (1993); see also Nelson v. State, 850 So.2d 514, 525 (Fla.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1091, 124 S.Ct. 961, 157 L.Ed.2d 797 (2003); Melendez v. State, 612 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1992). Similarly, we have required a contemporaneous objection in order to preserve a challenge to vague CCP instructions. See, e.g., Jackson, 648 So.2d at 90 (Claims that the instruction on the [CCP] aggravator is unconstitutionally vague are procedurally barred unless a specific objection is made at trial and pursued on appeal.) (citing James v. State, 615 So.2d 668, 669 & n. 3 (Fla.1993)). Because Arbelaez's Espinosa and Jackson claims would have been procedurally barred, his appellate counsel was not ineffective in failing to raise them on appeal.