The defendant contends that his capital murder conviction and death sentence must be reversed because, he claims, the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of the capital murder-for-hire of Clemer Woodall, as charged in the indictment. More specifically, the defendant argues that, even if there was sufficient evidence to indicate that he procured Pope to kill Elmer Woodall, there was insufficient proof indicating that he specifically intended that Pope kill Clemer Woodall, his mother. No defendant can be found guilty of a capital offense unless he had an intent to kill, and that intent to kill cannot be supplied by the felony-murder doctrine. Beck v. State, 396 So.2d 645, 662 (Ala.1981); see also Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 797, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982) (<HOLDING>). However, this Court has written: “[T]he
holding that what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is a question of law holding cruel and unusual punishment complaint not preserved holding that defendants claim that execution by electrocution or lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is meritless holding that imposing the death penalty upon the driver of a getaway car who did not himself kill attempt to kill or intend that a killing take place or that lethal force will be em ployed constitutes cruel and unusual punishment holding that the fact that defendant spent years on death row awaiting execution does not render the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment