fully advise the jury of the importance of its role and do not violate Caldwell.” Sochor v. State, 619 So.2d 285, 291 (Fla.1993) (citing Combs v. State, 525 So.2d 853 (Fla.1988)). CONCLUSION For the reasons expressed above, we reject each claim of error as either merit-less, harmless, or procedurally barred and affirm Ault’s sentences of death. It is so ordered. LEWIS, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ„ concur. CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, J., concur in result. QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion, in which PARIENTE, J., concurs. 1 . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 2 . The trial court weighed this circumstance and the aggravated child abuse circumstance as a single aggravator, in accordance with our decision in Lukehart v. State, 776 So.2d 906, 925 (Fla.2000) (<HOLDING>). 3 . In considering this claim, the court
holding that attempted sexual abuse of a child under the age of fourteen is a crime of viqlenee holding that the offense of sexual battery requires the state prove the victims lack of consent regardless of the victims age and charge the jury on the same holding that the new york misdemeanor offense of sexual abuse of a minor constitutes an aggravated felony under ina  101a43asexual abuse of a minor holding that to weigh aggravated child abuse as a separate aggravator from a minor victims age would constitute improper doubling holding that an enhancement for distribution of child pornography to a minor was improper because the pornographic materials at issue were transmitted to an undercover law enforcement officer who was not a minor