Court recognized that ‘no federal or state court has accepted the argument that a prolonged stay on death row constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, especially where both parties bear responsibility for the long delay.’ ” Id. (quoting Booker v. State, 969 So.2d 186, 200 (Fla.2007)). In this case, Marek has contributed to the delay of his execution by filing several postconviction motions and habeas petitions. He has also been a party to several class action proceedings. As we stated in Tompkins, “He cannot now contend that his punishment has been illegally prolonged because the delay in carrying out his sentence is in large part due to his own actions in challenging his conviction and sentence.” Id. Marek, 8 So.3d at 1131; see also Gore v. State, 964 So.2d 1257, 1276 (Fla.2007) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1197, 128 S.Ct. 1250,
holding that twentythree years served on death row is not cruel and unusual punishment holding that what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is a question of law holding cruel and unusual punishment complaint not preserved holding that seventyfive to ninetynine years for robbery is not 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