find that each aggravating circumstance standing alone would outweigh all collective mitigation.” Some jurors — at least one — might well have taken a different approach. There is really no way to know. -Such diversity of views, is one of the bedrock values underlying our jury system, facilitating sentencing that “expresses] the conscience of the community on the ultimate question of life or death.” Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 519, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968). Nonetheless, and even though “[t]he right to jury trial is fundamental to our system of criminal procedure,” Summerlin, 542 U.S. at 358, 124 S.Ct. 2519, that Gallegos was sentenced by a method later held unconstitutional is, under Summerlin, not a ground for granting relief, and he advances, no-such claim. Id. (<HOLDING>). For the reasons given above and applying the
holding that the rule announced in ring does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review holding that batson does apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review holding that ring does not apply retroactively in florida postconviction proceedings to cases that were final on direct review at the time of the ring decision holding newly announced rules of constitutional criminal procedure must apply retroactively to all cases state or federal pending on direct review or not yet final with no exception holding that apprendi announced a rule of criminal procedure forecloses  argument that ring announced a substantive rule