Opinion ID: 1611770
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Remaining Penalty Phase Claims

Text: In his claim eight, Cole asserts that the trial court impermissibly relied upon nonstatutory aggravating factors when sentencing Cole and that Cole is therefore entitled to a new sentencing proceeding. Cole points to the trial court's final order denying the rule 3.850 motion in which the trial court stated: 10. The jury's advisory verdict of death was unanimousdespite the fact that it was instructed upon and given evidence of non-statutory mitigating circumstances. Extensive statutory and non-statutory aggravating circumstances were prevented [sic]. State v. Cole, No. 94-498-CF, order at 9 (Fla. 5th Cir. Ct. order filed May 24, 2000) (emphasis added). [8] On direct appeal, Cole raised numerous challenges to aggravating and mitigating circumstances, which we rejected. See Cole, 701 So.2d at 851-53. Cole did not contend on direct appeal that the trial court considered nonstatutory aggravating circumstances in its imposition of the death penalty, and we clearly identified that the trial court only considered four statutory aggravating circumstances in its evaluation of the imposition of the death penalty. See id. at 849 n. 1. We agree with the State that Cole's current argument is procedurally barred as the issue could have and should have been raised on direct appeal. See, e.g., Hall v. State, 541 So.2d 1125, 1126 n. 1 (Fla.1989). Cole's eleventh claim is that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to explore trial counsel's failure to litigate the unconstitutional nature of the aggravating circumstances. He maintains that because of his robbery conviction, he was automatically eligible for the death penalty, that the jury instructions improperly shifted the burden to Cole to prove mitigating circumstances, that section 921.141(5), Florida Statutes (1993), is unconstitutionally vague, and that the jury instructions precluded the jurors from considering the totality of the circumstances, in violation of Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393, 107 S.Ct. 1821, 95 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987). We agree with the State's position that these issues are procedurally barred, as they could have and should have been raised on direct appeal. See Asay v. State, 769 So.2d 974, 989 (Fla.2000). Lastly, Cole argues that cumulative error requires reversal of the death sentence and a new sentencing proceeding. We disagree and find that Cole is not entitled to relief under Strickland on this claim.