Stephen Booker v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12489

Booker, a Florida death row inmate, challenged his 28 U.S.C. §2254 petition after the district court denied relief.
The sole COA issue concerns whether the Florida Supreme Court’s denial of an instruction on other consecutive sentences conflicted with Simmons v. South Carolina.
In 1977 Booker was charged with first-degree murder, sexual battery, and burglary; the victim was elderly and murdered in Gainesville.
Evidence at trial included knife wounds, sexual assault indicators, fingerprints, and hairs matching Booker; the jury convicted and recommended death, which the trial judge imposed.
On direct appeal the Florida Supreme Court affirmed; subsequent habeas relief was denied, and a resentencing occurred in 1998 while Booker was serving a 100-year concurrent term.
At resentencing the jury could choose death or life with parole after 25 years; it asked if time served counted toward a life sentence, and the court refused to consider that question; the jury again recommended death, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury instruction on parole ineligibility was required under Simmons.	Booker argues Nixon/Simmons compel parole-ineligibility instruction.	Florida and state decisions reject functional parole-ineligibility instruction; Ramdass controls.	AEDPA not violated; Florida court decision not contrary/unreasonable.

Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994) (parole ineligibility required when life without parole is the only alternative for future dangerousness)
Ramdass v. Angelone, 530 U.S. 156 (2000) (disapproved functional approach; not controlling where parole eligibility exists otherwise)
Shafer v. South Carolina, 532 U.S. 36 (2001) (reaffirmed Simmons for future dangerousness cases with parole ineligibility under new schemes)
Kelly v. South Carolina, 534 U.S. 246 (2002) (extended Simmons to implied future dangerousness scenarios)
Nixon v. State, 572 So. 2d 1336 (1990) (Nixon controls when defendant already sentenced for noncapital crimes; no instruction on penalties for noncapital crimes)
Campbell v. Polk, 447 F.3d 270 (4th Cir. 2006) (discussed Ramdass/functional approach in similar context)
Bates v. State, 750 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1999) (rejected use of other sentences as mitigating; not relevant to actual imprisonment duration)
Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (1977) (due process concerns with ex parte confidential information; not controlling on parole instruction)
Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986) (mitigating evidence admissibility; not analogous to parole instruction issue)