Opinion ID: 72026
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the aggravating circumstances jury

Text: INSTRUCTIONS CLAIM 12 In imposing death sentences upon Davis for each of the three counts for which he was convicted, the trial court found that five statutory aggravating circumstances were applicable to all three murder counts, and that one additional aggravating circumstance was applicable to the murder count involving the youngest victim. See 461 So. 2d at 71. On direct appeal, the Court upheld the applicability of the five statutory aggravating circumstances for all three murders, but held that the sixth one, which had been found only in the case of the youngest victim's murder, was not applicable. See id. at 72. The Florida Supreme Court nonetheless affirmed Davis' death sentences, because [s]triking one of the aggravating circumstances leaves five valid ones for each count, with nothing in mitigation. Id. Davis claims that the jury instructions given on three of the five statutory aggravating circumstances that were applied in his case were deficient, thereby rendering those three vague and overbroad in this case. The three aggravators Davis attacks on these grounds are: the especially heinous, atrocious or cruel circumstance; the cold, calculated, and premeditated circumstance; and the during the course of a felony circumstance. The district court held that this claim was procedurally barred, see 853 F. Supp. at 1583-84, and the parties sharply disagree about the correctness of that holding. However, we need not reach the hotly disputed procedural bar issue, because as Davis effectively concedes, relief on this aggravating circumstance jury instruction claim is due to be denied on other grounds. Involving 13 as it does alleged error occurring at only the advisory jury sentencing stage, this claim is dependent upon retroactive application of Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079, 112 S. Ct. 2926 (1992). We held in Glock v. Singletary, 65 F.3d 878, 890 (11th Cir. 1995) (en banc), that retroactive application of the Espinosa decision is barred by the Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S. Ct. 1060 (1989) doctrine. Therefore, as Davis conceded at oral argument, the Glock decision forecloses this claim regardless of whether the claim is procedurally defaulted or has merit. Since oral argument the Supreme Court has reached the same conclusion that we did in Glock, holding in Lambrix v. Singletary, 117 S. Ct. 1517, 1524-31 (1997), that Espinosa announced a new rule of law that does not fit within either of the two exceptions to the Teague doctrine.3 We are, of course, aware of the Supreme Court’s admonition in Lambrix that the question of whether a claim is procedurally barred “ordinarily” should be decided before any Teague issues relating to that claim are addressed. However, the Supreme Court qualified that admonition, making it something in the nature of a presumption instead of an invariable rule. The Court acknowledged that “[j]udicial economy might counsel giving the Teague question priority, for example, if it were easily resolvable against the habeas petitioner, whereas the procedural bar issue involved 3 We withheld our decision in this appeal pending two decisions. Lambrix was one of them, and Lindh v. Murphy, No. 96-6298, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997), was the other. 14 complicated issues of state law.” 117 S. Ct. at 1523. That is the situation we have. The Teague issue could not be more easily resolvable against Davis, because the Supreme Court decided precisely the same issue against habeas petitioners in Lambrix itself. Given that, and the fact that the procedural bar issues relating to this particular claim are somewhat complicated, judicial economy dictates that we rest our decision about the Espinosa claim on the Teague doctrine, just as the Supreme Court did in its Lambrix decision. We do so, holding that Davis’ aggravating circumstances jury instruction claim is Teague barred.