inclusion of aggravating factor). This conclusion is supported by testimony that appellant’s substance abuse started when he was an adult, that his family tried to help him end the abuse, but that he rejected their help. The third issue is whether the sentence is proportionate. Proportionality review requires that this Court “consider the totality of the circumstances in a case, and to compare it with other capital cases. It is not a comparison between the number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” Terry v. State, 668 So.2d 954, 965 (Fla.1996)(quoting Porter v. State, 564 So.2d 1060, 1064 (Fla.1990)). We hold that the death sentence is proportionate in this case based on the imposition of the sentence in other cases. See, e.g., Consalvo v. State, 697 So.2d 805, 820 (Fla.1996)(<HOLDING>); Ferrell v. State, 680 So.2d 390, 391-92
holding imposition of the death penalty proportionate where the trial court found two aggravating circumstances ccp and contemporaneous murder two statutory mitigating factors and a number of nonstatutory mitigating factors holding death penalty proportionate where there were two aggravating factors  avoiding arrest and commission during course of a burglary  with some nonstatutory mitigation holding that failure to charge nonstatutory aggravating factors in indictment is not constitutional error because under the fdpa only statutory factors expose a criminal defendant to the death penalty holding death penalty proportionate where there were two aggravating factorsthe murder was committed for pecuniary gain and defendant had been convicted of a prior violent felonyand where there were two statutory and three nonstatutory mitigating circumstances holding that the fifth amendment does not require the government to charge nonstatutory aggravating factors in the indictment because the finding of a nonstatutory aggravated alone will not support imposition of the death penalty