Miller v. State, 926 So.2d 1248, 1259-60 (Fla.2006) (rejecting as both procedurally barred and without merit claims that (1) Florida’s capital statute fails to provide a standard for determining that aggravating circumstances “outweigh” mitigating circumstances, fails to define “sufficient aggravating circumstances,” and fails to adequately define the aggravating circumstances; (2) Florida’s capital sentencing procedure lacks the independent reweighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances required by Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 96 S.Ct. 2960, 49 L.Ed.2d 918 (1976); and (3) the aggravating circumstances have been applied in a vague and inconsistent manner, and juries have received unconstitutionally vague instructions); Kilgore v. State, 55 So.3d 487, 511-12 (Fla.2010) (<HOLDING>); Wyatt v. State, 71 So.3d 86, 112 (Fla.2011)
holding that a habeas claim is procedurally barred where it was already raised on direct appeal and decided on the merits by this court 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 holding that a caldwell claim is procedurally barred if it is not 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 challenge to the constitutionality of execution meth ods is procedurally barred if it is not raised on direct appeal