Opinion ID: 1826001
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 25

Heading: In the Course of a Felony Aggravator

Text: Stephens argues that the aggravating circumstance that the murder was committed in the course of committing a felony is unconstitutional because it constitutes an automatic aggravator and does not narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty. This claim is without merit. We have repeatedly found the murder in the course of a felony aggravator to be constitutional. Ault v. State, 866 So.2d 674 (Fla. 2003); Hitchcock v. State, 755 So.2d 638 (Fla.2000); Blanco v. State, 706 So.2d 7 (Fla.1997). We have also rejected constitutional challenges to the murder in the course of a felony aggravator based on equal protection, due process, and cruel and unusual punishment. Ault, 866 So.2d at 686 (citing Clark v. State, 443 So.2d 973, 978 (Fla.1983); Menendez v. State, 419 So.2d 312, 314-15 (Fla.1982)). Stephens also contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the aggravating circumstance of murder in the course of a felony was sufficient by itself to justify a death sentence in a felony murder case. However, the record demonstrates that Stephens is mistaken. After reading the five possible aggravating circumstances to the jury, the trial court properly instructed the jury, in accord with the standard jury instructions, that proof of one or more aggravating circumstances does not by itself dictate a death recommendation even in the absence of mitigation evidence. Because this claim is without merit, appellate counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise the claim. See Rutherford, 774 So.2d at 643. Habeas relief is denied on this claim.