after a finding is made that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances. Thus, proportionality in a death penalty case is the last step in the sentencing analysis when determining whether the sentence should be aggravated to a sentence of death. Iri essence, it is the last line of defense against aggravation of a life sentence to a sentence of death. Second, as the Florida Supreme Court has long held, a “proportionality review requires a ‘discrete analysis of the facts, entailing a qualitative review by this Court of the underlying basis for each aggravator and mitigator rather than a "quantitative analysis.’” Ocha v. State, 826 So.2d at 965-66 (quoting Urbin v. State, 714 So.2d 411, 416 (Fla.1998)). See also Silvia v. State, 60 So.3d 959, 974 (Fla.2011) (<HOLDING>). Thus, under a proportionality analysis, the
holding that it was permissible to ask whether a juror would consider death sentence if juror determined aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating circumstances 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 that dependent upon the circumstances of the case a defendants deportability could be viewed as either a mitigating or an aggravating factor holding that the relative weight or value assignable to aggravating and mitigating factors properly found is not subject to review for abuse of discretion holding that a proportionality analysis entails a qualitative rather than a quantitative review of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances