Does a Capital Murder Defendant Have the Right to Reveal Previously Imposed Sentences to the Jury ?
In Nixon v. State, 572 So.2d 1336, 1345 (Fla. 1990), we held that a capital murder defendant, who had been convicted of three additional noncapital offenses carrying lengthy maximum penalties, was not entitled to an instruction informing the jury of the maximum sentences that could be imposed for the other crimes.
See also Franqui v. State, 699 So.2d 1312, 1326 (Fla. 1997) (following Nixon); Marquard v. State, 641 So.2d 54, 57-58 (Fla. 1994) (same); Gorby v. State, 630 So.2d 544, 548 (Fla. 1993) (stating that, according to Nixon, "during the penalty phase, there is no need to instruct the jury on the penalties for noncapital crimes a defendant has been convicted of").
Booker argues that Nixon is not controlling here because, unlike the defendant in that case, Booker has already been sentenced for the crimes other than the first-degree murder conviction.
In making this argument, however, Booker overlooks several of our prior decisions applying Nixon to facts substantively identical to those in this case.
In Campbell v. State, 679 So.2d 720, 722 (Fla. 1996), the defendant directly appealed a death sentence imposed on him after a resentencing hearing.
After finding that the prosecutor had committed various acts of misconduct during the hearing, we reversed the defendant's sentence and again remanded for resentencing. See 679 So.2d at 724-25.
Before doing so, however, we addressed "several additional claims to aid in resentencing." Id. at 725.
Particularly relevant to this case, we stated:
At the time of resentencing, Campbell had already been sentenced to consecutive life terms for other related crimes and now claims that the court erred in preventing him from pointing this out to prospective jurors and in declining to instruct the jury on this.
This issue has already been decided adversely to Campbell. See, e.g., Nixon v. State, 572 So.2d 1336 (Fla.1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 854, 112 S.Ct. 164, 116 L.Ed.2d 128 (1991). We find no error. 679 So.2d at 725.
Thus, in Campbell, we clearly determined that Nixon is controlling in cases such as this.