Sign Up for Vincent AI
State v. Poole
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Scott A. Browne, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee
Eric Pinkard, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, and James L. Driscoll Jr., David Dixon Hendry, and Rachel P. Roebuck, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle Region, Temple Terrace, Florida; and Mark J. MacDougall and Z.W. Julius Chen, Washington, District of Columbia, and Parvin Daphne Moyne of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, New York, New York, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant
The State of Florida appeals from a postconviction order setting aside Mark Anthony Poole's 2011 death sentence for the 2001 murder of Noah Scott. The sentence became final in 2015. Poole v. State (Poole II) , 151 So. 3d 402 (Fla. 2014), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S. Ct. 2052, 191 L.Ed.2d 960 (2015).1 The trial court set aside the sentence and ordered a new penalty phase proceeding after finding the sentence to have been imposed in violation of the United States and Florida Constitutions as interpreted and applied in Hurst v. State , 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). Arguing that Poole suffered no constitutional deprivation in his sentencing proceeding, the State requests that we reexamine and partially recede from Hurst v. State .
Poole filed a cross-appeal, arguing that his trial counsel's concession of guilt on related non-homicide offenses violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and constituted structural error requiring reversal of his convictions and a new guilt phase trial.
We address the cross-appeal first because relief on Poole's guilt phase postconviction claim would moot the sentencing issue. The trial court rejected the guilt phase claim, and we affirm the trial court as to this issue because Poole did not preserve the issue for review on appeal. As for the sentencing issue, we agree with the State that we must recede from Hurst v. State except to the extent that it held that a jury must unanimously find the existence of a statutory aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the trial court's order setting aside Poole's sentence.
The opinion on direct appeal set out the following facts:
Poole v. State (Poole ), 997 So. 2d 382, 387-88 (Fla. 2008) (footnote omitted).
The trial began on April 21, 2005, and the jury returned a verdict six days later finding Poole guilty of all charges, namely first-degree murder of Noah Scott, attempted first-degree murder of Loretta White, armed burglary, sexual battery of Loretta White, and armed robbery. The penalty phase began on May 2, 2005. The jury recommended death by a vote of twelve to zero two days later, which allowed the trial court to consider a death sentence under section 921.141, Florida Statutes (2005). On August 25, 2005, the trial court sentenced Poole to death.
On direct appeal Poole raised a number of challenges to his convictions and death sentence, including that his death sentence violated the dictates of Ring v. Arizona , 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), because Florida's statutory sentencing scheme did not require the jury to unanimously find all of the aggravators necessary to impose a death sentence. Poole , 997 So. 2d at 396. This Court rejected that argument, holding that Florida's capital sentencing scheme was not unconstitutional pursuant to Ring . Id. Alternatively, we held that Poole's case fell outside the scope of Ring because the jury had unanimously found that Poole committed other violent felonies during the murder—specifically attempted first-degree murder, sexual battery, armed burglary, and armed robbery. Id. Those convictions unanimously found by Poole's jury formed the basis of one of the statutory aggravators found by the trial court—that Poole had prior violent felony convictions. Id. Thus, this case fell "outside the scope of Ring ." Id. However, this Court determined that Poole was entitled to a new penalty phase proceeding because the prosecutor improperly introduced inadmissible nonstatutory aggravation by cross-examining witnesses about unproven prior arrests and the unproven content of a tattoo on Poole's body. Id. at 393-94. We vacated Poole's sentence of death and remanded for a new penalty phase. Id. at 394.
On June 29, 2011, following a new penalty phase, the jury recommended death by a vote of 11 to 1. Poole II , 151 So. 3d at 408. The trial court found four aggravating circumstances: (1) the contemporaneous conviction for the attempted murder of Loretta White (very great weight); (2) the capital felony occurred during the commission of burglary, robbery, and sexual battery (great weight); (3) the capital felony was committed for financial gain (merged with robbery but not burglary or sexual battery) (less than moderate weight); and (4) the capital felony was committed in a heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC) manner (very great weight). Id. Again, three of these four aggravators were found unanimously by the jury because the jury found Poole guilty of the other charged crimes on which these aggravators are based.
The trial court found two statutory mitigating circumstances: (...
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialTry vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialExperience vLex's unparalleled legal AI
Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting