Opinion ID: 1805126
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: Proportionality Review/Harmless Error Analysis

Text: Power also contends that this Court conducted a flawed harmless error analysis on direct appeal due to the absence of substantial, compelling mitigation from the Court's consideration. We reject this claim. This Court has said: We have described the proportionality review conducted by this Court in every death case as follows: Because death is a unique punishment, it is necessary in each case to engage in a thoughtful, deliberate proportionality review to consider the totality of circumstances in a case, and to compare it with other capital cases. It is not a comparison between the number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Tillman v. State, 591 So.2d 167, 169 (Fla.1991) (quoting Porter v. State, 564 So.2d 1060, 1064 (Fla.1990)) (alterations in original). On direct appeal, this Court conducted a proportionality analysis. See Power, 605 So.2d at 864. The fact that this Court struck the CCP aggravator in this case establishes more than a cursory review by this Court. Power now asserts that this Court's review was inadequate due to the absence of Power's personal-life-related mitigation from this Court's consideration on direct appeal. However, a defendant cannot succeed in restricting the use of mitigation evidence at trial and then complain about this Court's lack of consideration of such evidence on direct appeal.