921 So.2d 538, 546 (Fla.2005) (“Our current system fosters independence because the trial court alone must make detailed findings about the existence and weight of aggravating circumstances; it has no jury findings on which to rely. Individual jury findings on aggravating factors would contradict this settled practice.”); see Lebron v. State, 982 So.2d 649, 664 (Fla.2008) (stating that use of such a verdict form may constitute harmless error). 4. Mental Health Exam Buzia argued in his postconviction motion that he was deprived of his due process right to a competent mental health evaluation under Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985). Buzia correctly acknowledges here that this claim is procedurally barred. Marshall v. State, 854 So.2d 1235, 1248 (Fla.2003) (<HOLDING>) (citing Cherry v. State, 781 So.2d 1040, 1047
holding that the defendants habeas claim was procedurally barred because it could have been or was raised in his postconviction motion holding that the claim of not being able to interview jurors was procedurally barred because the claim should and could have been raised on direct appeal holding claim of deprivation of right to competent mental health evaluation was procedurally barred because it could have been raised on direct appeal holding that the caldwell claim is procedurally barred because it could have been raised on direct appeal but was not holding that a similar claim in a rule 32 petition was procedurally barred because it was raised at trial and because it was raised on direct appeal