Opinion ID: 1832087
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Other Penalty Phase Claims[16]

Text: Coney claims that the circuit court erred in denying relief on the following penalty phase claims: (a) Florida's capital sentencing statute is unconstitutional; (b) the trial court failed to find nonstatutory mitigation; (c) the jury should not have been able to consider Coney's prior convictions; (d) the arson aggravator constituted an automatic aggravator for the crime of felony murder; (e) the jury was wrongly told that its role was merely advisory; and (f) the prosecutor made improper arguments during closing. We disagree. To the extent Coney's claims on this point are claims of trial court error, such claims generally are not cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion. [17] To the extent Coney's claims on this point are discernable from the record, they constitute pure questions of law and are subject to de novo review. [18] The circuit court below properly denied relief on the following grounds: (a) procedurally barred (could have been raised on direct appeal); (b) procedurally barred (was raised on direct appeal); (c) procedurally barred (could have been raised on direct appeal); (d) procedurally barred (could have been raised on direct appeal); (e) procedurally barred (could have been raised on direct appeal); (f) procedurally barred (could have been raised on direct appeal). We find no error on this claim and we reject Coney's remaining rule 3.850 claims. [19]