Opinion ID: 1940167
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: duncan's 3.850 cross-appeal

Text: Having determined that Duncan is entitled to a new penalty phase as a result of the ineffectiveness of his penalty phase counsel in failing to present available evidence in support of mental health mitigation, it is unnecessary for us to address the claims raised by Duncan in his cross-appeal regarding additional errors that he asserts occurred during the penalty phase. Therefore, we decline to address claims five, six, seven, and eight of Duncan's cross-appeal. With respect to claims one through four, which all pertain to alleged errors committed during the guilt phase, and claim nine regarding Duncan's inability to interview jurors, we hold that these claims are all without merit. [7] Finally, regarding Duncan's tenth claim  that a combination of procedural and substantive errors deprived Duncan of a fundamentally fair capital trial and penalty phase guaranteed by the United States and Florida Constitutions  a review of the postconviction record reveals this claim was raised for the first time in Duncan's first amended motion for postconviction relief. However, this issue was not raised in Duncan's fifth amended motion for postconviction relief, the motion specifically ruled upon by the circuit court, and therefore the trial court did not address this issue in its order. [I]t is this Court's job to review a circuit court's ruling on a rule 3.850 claim, not to decide the merits of that claim. Thomas v. State, 838 So.2d 535, 539 (Fla.2003). As this issue was neither raised nor decided below, it is procedurally barred. [8]