Opinion ID: 1912218
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: jury override in first trial

Text: Finally, Garcia urges that we should address an issue that was raised but never resolved in Garcia's first appeal a claimed improper override of the prior jury's life recommendation for the murder of Amador. Garcia argues that the Court must review the override of the previous jury's life recommendation for the Amador murder. Garcia asserts that because in his original trial in 1988 the trial judge erred in overriding the jury's recommendation of life for Garcia's murder of Amador based on Tedder v. State, 322 So.2d 908 (Fla.1975), we should determine that the defendant was acquitted of the death penalty and that the State was therefore barred from seeking the death penalty a second time. The problem with raising this argument at this time is the procedural posture in which Garcia raises this issue. Garcia raised this issue in the original direct appeal. However, when we reversed the convictions based on the trial court's improper joinder of offenses and remanded for a new trial, we stated that because the improper joinder issue disposes of this case, we do not address any of Garcia's other arguments presented on appeal. Garcia, 568 So.2d at 901. Clearly, we had the authority to address the jury override issue even though we were reversing the convictions on another ground. See Keen v. State, 775 So.2d 263, 287 (Fla.2000). However, on direct appeal in Garcia, the Court expressly did not address the jury override issue, and thus neither rejected nor approved of the jury override. [13] Thus, it would not constitute the law of the case because the issue was expressly not decided by this Court. However, we decline to address the issue in this direct appeal because Garcia has abandoned this claim. Garcia did not challenge our decision with regard to the jury override issue in a motion for rehearing. Further, he did not raise the issue of the propriety of the death penalty for the murder of Amador on this basis before the trial court. Given the unique procedural posture in which Garcia raises this issue, and in light of our reversal of the convictions, we decline to address the merits of this claim in this appeal.