Opinion ID: 1842460
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jury Instructions for the Murder In the Course of a Felony Aggravator

Text: At the penalty phase of Arbelaez's trial, the jury was instructed that it could consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the murder was committed during the course of a kidnapping. The State told the jury during its closing argument that this murder in the course of a felony aggravator had already been established by virtue of Arbelaez's contemporaneous kidnapping conviction: You found that the defendant was guilty of kidnapping, so clearly the murder of [the child] occurred while the defendant was kidnapping this child. There is no question about that. Arbelaez argued in his 3.850 motion that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the jury instructions for the murder in the course of a felony aggravator, which in his view established an impermissible automatic aggravating factor. Arbelaez, 775 So.2d at 919 n. 8. We rejected his claim as procedurally barred, because it was not raised on direct appeal. Id. Arbelaez now argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge both the jury instructions and the State's comments during closing argument. We find no merit to Arbelaez's argument. We have repeatedly rejected defendants' claims that the aggravating circumstance that the murder was committed in the course of committing a specified felony is unconstitutional because it constitutes an automatic aggravator and does not narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty. Ault v. State, 866 So.2d 674, 686 (Fla.2003); see also Hitchcock v. State, 755 So.2d 638, 644 (Fla.2000); Blanco v. State, 706 So.2d 7, 11 (Fla.1997); Banks v. State, 700 So.2d 363, 367 (Fla.1997); Clark v. State, 443 So.2d 973, 978 (Fla.1983). Because Arbelaez's challenge to the jury instructions clearly would have failed on appeal, his appellate counsel was not ineffective in failing to raise the issue. As to the State's allegedly improper comments during closing argument, Arbelaez would have been procedurally barred from challenging those comments on appeal. This Court has stated that, [a]s a general rule, the failure to raise a contemporaneous objection when improper closing arguments are made waives any claim concerning such comments for appellate review. Card v. State, 803 So.2d 613, 622 (Fla.2001) (citing Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879, 898 (Fla.2000)). Arbelaez did not object to the allegedly improper comments in the State's closing argument, nor did those comments constitute fundamental error for which no objection would be required. See, e.g., Cherry v. Moore, 829 So.2d 873, 882 (Fla.2002) (explaining that improper comments in closing argument must be relatively egregious to constitute fundamental error). Thus, Arbelaez waived his right to challenge the State's comments on appeal. Arbelaez's appellate counsel was not deficient in failing to raise a procedurally barred claim.