RICKY BERNARD ROBERTS, PETITIONER,
v.
HARRY K. SINGLETARY, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Ricky Bernard Roberts, a death row inmate, petitioned for habeas corpus relief claiming that recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding jury instructions on aggravating circumstances constituted a change in law requiring resentencing. The Florida Supreme Court denied the petition as procedurally barred because trial counsel failed to object to the instruction on constitutional or vagueness grounds.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied because the claim is procedurally barred. Claims challenging jury instructions as vague or unconstitutional must be raised at trial; failure to object on these grounds bars the claim on appeal or habeas review.
[1] A claim is procedurally barred in a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the defense counsel failed to object to the jury instruction on the grounds of vagueness or unco…
[2] A habeas corpus petition may be denied when the issue raised is procedurally barred due to a failure to make a timely objection at trial.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We have repeatedly held that claims are proeedurally barred where there was a failure at trial to object to the instruction on the grounds of vagueness or unconstitutionality.”
Establishes the procedural bar rule that governs this case and prevents consideration of newly-decided constitutional principles regarding jury instructions.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoberts is an inmate under sentence of death. His case had been previously litigated in the Florida Supreme Court. At trial, defense counsel objected …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Heinous, Atrocious, Or Cruel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ricky Bernard Roberts, an inmate under sentence of death, petitions this Court for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const. We deny the petition because the issue raised in it is procedurally barred.
The facts of this case and its procedural history are recited in prior cases brought in this Court. See Roberts v. State, 568 So. 2d 1255 (Fla.1990); Roberts v. State, 510 So. 2d 885 (Fla.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 943, 108 S.Ct. 1123, 99 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988).
This is Roberts’ second habeas corpus petition in this Court. He seeks relief claiming that recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Espinosa v. Florida, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 2926, 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992); and Sochor v. Florida, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 2114, 119 L.Ed.2d 326 (1992), relating to jury instructions on the aggravating circumstance of heinous, atrocious, or cruel constitute a change in Florida law that must be applied to his claim. Roberts asserts that this change establishes fundamental error in his sentencing which would require this Court to reverse and remand to the trial court for a new sentencing procedure.
The State urges that this claim is procedurally barred because defense counsel did not object to the form of the instruction, only to its applicability in the present case.
We agree with the State. The record here does not reflect any objection on the grounds of unconstitutionality or vagueness of the instruction given. Instead, defense counsel objected to the applicability of the instruction in this case. We have repeatedly held that claims are proeedurally barred where there was a failure at trial to object to the instruction on the grounds of vagueness or unconstitutionality. See, e.g., Sims v. Singletary, 622 So. 2d 980 (Fla.1993); Mills v. Singletary, 622 So. 2d 943 (Fla.1993); Atkins v. Singletary, 622 So. 2d 951 (Fla.1993); Turner v. Dugger, 614 So. 2d 1075, 1081 (Fla.1992); Melendez v. State, 612 So. 2d 1366, 1369 (Fla.1992), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Aug. 9, 1993) (No. 93-5528); Johnson v. Singletary, 612 So. 2d 575, 577 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 2049, 123 L.Ed.2d 667 (1993); Kennedy v. Singletary, 602 So. 2d 1285, 1285 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 2, 120 L.Ed.2d 931 (1992); see also Sochor, — U.S. at — & n. , 112 S.Ct. at 2120 & n.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
BARRETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, grimes, kogan and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carroll v. State, 815 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2002)…stitutionally vague. Trial counsel did not object to the instruction on the basis it was unconstitutionally vague, but rather objected to the applicability of the instruction. Thus, this claim was not preserved for appeal. See Roberts v. Singletary, 626 So. 2d 168, 168-69 (Fla.1993) (holding claim that HAC instruction was unconstitutionally vague was procedurally barred where trial counsel only objected to its applicability). Nonetheless, the record reflects that appellate counsel not only challenged the suff…
-
Street v. State, 636 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 1994)…the instruction as requested also would have been constitutionally deficient. Shell v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 1, 111 S.Ct. 313, 112 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990). As a consequence, we find that Street did not preserve the issue for appeal. Roberts v. Singletary, 626 So. 2d 168 (Fla.1993); Johnson v. Singletary, 612 So. 2d 575, 577 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2049, 123 L.Ed.2d 667 (1993). In any event, even if the issue had been preserved, we conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. St…
-
Roberts v. State, 678 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 1996)…t in 1993, arguing that he was entitled to a new sentencing proceeding based upon several decisions of the United States Supreme Court relating to jury instructions on the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance. Roberts v. Singletary, 626 So. 2d 168 (Fla.1993). We denied the petition, finding the issue to be procedurally barred because defense counsel raised no objection as to the form of the instruction. Id. at 168-69. Roberts recently filed two civil complaints for disclosure of public recor…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079 (U.S. 1992)
- Sochor v. Florida, 504 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1992)
- Roberts v. State, 568 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 1990)
- Roberts v. State, 510 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1987)
- Turner v. Dugger, 614 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 1992)
- Spanolia v. Lee's Crane Serv., Inc., 612 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Roberts v. Florida, 485 U.S. 943 (U.S. 1988)
- Erickson v. Alltech Assocs., Inc., 485 U.S. 943 (U.S. 1988)
- Johnson v. Singletary, 612 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1993)
- Kennedy v. Singletary, 602 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1992)