Opinion ID: 1795830
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Harmless Error Analysis on Direct Appeal

Text: Sochor's claim that this Court did not conduct a proper harmless error analysis is without merit. On remand from the United States Supreme Court, we held that beyond a reasonable doubt, eliminating the invalid [aggravating] factor would have made no difference in Sochor's sentence. The trial court's reliance on the unsupported aggravator, therefore, was harmless error. Sochor, 619 So.2d at 293. In any event, such a claim is procedurally barred. See Bottoson v. State, 813 So.2d 31, 35 (Fla.2002) (This Court has consistently held that habeas claims wherein the defendant challenges this Court's previous standard of review in the case are procedurally barred.); Thompson v. State, 759 So.2d 650, 657 n. 6 (Fla.2000) (rejecting claim that this Court conducted an improper harmless error analysis during direct appeal and characterizing the claim as an improper invitation to utilize the writ of habeas [corpus] as a vehicle for the reargument of issues which have been raised and ruled on by this Court.).