Michael Shane Bargo, Jr. v. State of Florida, 221 So. 3d 562

On April 17–18, 2011, Michael Shane Bargo Jr. (age 18) planned and directed the luring, assault, shooting, and burning of 15‑year‑old Seath Jackson; co‑defendants included Amber Wright, Kyle Hooper, Charlie Ely, and Justin Soto.
Evidence showed premeditation: texts and calls luring the victim to Ely’s home, prior threats, an active fire pit prepared before the victim’s arrival, and eyewitness testimony of the attack.
Physical evidence: .22 caliber casings and a .22 Heritage revolver found at Ely’s home; a projectile recovered from burned remains consistent with .22 class characteristics; DNA and anthropological testing tied remains to the victim.
Bargo made multiple out‑of‑court confessions to acquaintances and fellow inmates; he admitted disposing of remains but denied committing the killing at trial.
Jury convicted Bargo of first‑degree murder; penalty phase produced a nonunanimous 10–2 death recommendation. Trial court found two aggravators (HAC and CCP) and several mitigators; sentenced Bargo to death.
On appeal Bargo raised multiple claims including ineffective assistance, sufficiency of evidence, denial of a crime scene expert, and constitutional challenges to Florida’s capital sentencing under Ring/Hurst.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bargo)	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for first‑degree murder	Evidence (eyewitnesses, confessions, physical and forensic evidence) supports Bargo as planner/shooter	Contended evidence insufficient to prove he committed the murder	Affirmed conviction: evidence was sufficient to support first‑degree murder
Denial of appointment of crime‑scene expert	No particularized need shown; even if needed, no prejudice because confessions and other forensic links were strong	Argued expert needed to test a pictured .22 rifle and fingerprint/bullet comparison could exculpate him	No abuse of discretion; no prejudice shown given confession evidence and expert testimony that Bargo’s revolver could not be excluded
Ineffective assistance of counsel	N/A (State defends conviction)	Raised several IAC claims (impeachment, trial argument, sentencing advocacy, ballistic issues)	Court declined to address IAC on direct appeal because claims not facially apparent; may be raised postconviction
Constitutionality of Florida’s death penalty under Ring/Hurst	State urged harmlessness of non‑unanimous jury recommendation	Bargo argued sentencing scheme violates Sixth Amendment and Hurst requires jury findings/unanimous recommendation	Death sentence vacated and case remanded for new penalty phase under Hurst; conviction affirmed

Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (Sixth Amendment requires jury, not judge, to find facts necessary to impose death)
Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (U.S. 2016) (Florida’s sentencing scheme unconstitutional under Sixth Amendment)
Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (on remand: jury must unanimously find aggravators, their sufficiency, that aggravators outweigh mitigators, and unanimously recommend death)
Gore v. State, 784 So.2d 418 (Fla. 2001) (IAC claims on direct appeal permissible only when facially apparent)
Spencer v. State, 615 So.2d 688 (Fla. 1993) (procedures for defendant’s allocution and sentencing hearing)
Franklin v. State, 209 So.3d 1241 (Fla. 2016) (nonunanimous jury recommendation is not harmless error under Hurst)