Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Barclay Vs. Florida

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jul 06, 1983

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

68 entries 5 linked 63 unlinked
Show
  1. Proffitt Vs. Florida US Supreme Court · Jul 02, 1976
  2. Gardner Vs. Florida US Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1977
  3. Lockett Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Jul 03, 1978
  4. Bell Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Jul 03, 1978
  5. Gryger Vs. Burke US Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1948
  6. U.S. 939 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Barclay v. Florida
    Search
  7. U.S. 939 (1983) Barclay v. Florida
    Search
  8. Barclay v. State
    Search
  9. However, the Florida Supreme Court later vacated its judgment sua sponte in light of our decision in Gardner v. Florida
    Search
  10. simply refused to reconsider its previous decision in the second appeal, those claims are properly before us. Reece v. Georgia
    Search
  11. Mikena v. State
    Search
  12. U. S. 862 , 462 U. S. 874 (1983), quoting Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  13. to the best of their ability. As long as that discretion is guided in a constitutionally adequate way, see Proffitt v. Florida
    Search
  14. Page 463 U. S. 952 A The Florida statute at issue in this case was upheld in Proffitt v. Florida
    Search
  15. Tedder v. State
    Search
  16. State v. Dixon
    Search
  17. footnotes omitted) (emphasis supplied). Thus the Florida statute, like the Georgia statute at issue in Zant v. Stephens
    Search
  18. and does not permit nonstatutory aggravating circumstances to enter into this weighing process. E.g., Mikenas v. State
    Search
  19. court found that some mitigating circumstances exist, the case will generally be remanded for resentencing. Elledge v. State
    Search
  20. So.2d 998, 1002-1003 (Fla.1977). See, e.g., Moody v. State
    Search
  21. Riley v. State
    Search
  22. the Florida Supreme Court applies a harmless error analysis. Elledge, supra, at 1002-1003. See, e.g., White v. State
    Search
  23. Sireci v. State
    Search
  24. Ferguson v. State
    Search
  25. that consideration of improper aggravating factors is harmless, even when no mitigating circumstances exist. In Lewis v. State
    Search
  26. So.2d 908, 910 (1975). In Williams v. State
    Search
  27. So.2d 538, 543 (1980), and Dobbert v. State
    Search
  28. and Florida law prohibits consideration of nonstatutory aggravating circumstances. In this case, as in Zant v. Stephens
    Search
  29. it allows for consideration of nonstatutory aggravating factors. In the only case to approve such a practice, Sawyer v. State
    Search
  30. defect in a sentence based on both statutory and nonstatutory aggravating circumstances. See also California v. Ramos
    Search
  31. as indicated in the previous discussion, is that mere errors of state law are not the concern of this Court, Gryger v. Burke
    Search
  32. So.2d 1, 10 (1973). See, e.g., Blair v. State
    Search
  33. The differences between this case and Godfrey v. Georgia
    Search
  34. life imprisonment. This is an awesome burden to be placed upon the Judge -- but in the landmark Florida case of State v. Dixon
    Search
  35. be shown to be reasonable and controlled, rather than capricious and discriminatory,' then it meets the test of Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  36. to make the defendant's criminal record an aggravating circumstance. Thus, this case is distinguishable from Zant v. Stephens
    Search
  37. U. S. 107 , 456 U. S. 121 , n. 21 (1982), quoting Gryger v. Burke
    Search
  38. to the State Supreme Court in order to ascertain as precisely as possible the state law basis for a sentence. See Zant v. Stephens
    Search
  39. In fact, even before this Court decided Lockett v. Ohio
    Search
  40. Supreme Court had construed this statute to permit consideration of any mitigating circumstances. See Songer v. State
    Search
  41. concurring in the judgment. Death as a punishment is unique in its severity and irrevocability. Since Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  42. procedures that are designed to assure reliability in sentencing Page 463 U. S. 959 determinations. Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  43. Woodson v. North
    Search
  44. Green v. Georgia
    Search
  45. U.S. Supreme Court Barclay v. Florida
    Search
  46. Reece v. Georgia
    Search
  47. Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  48. E.g., Mikenas v. State
    Search
  49. Elledge v. State
    Search
  50. Moody v. State
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial