Whether eliminating proportionality review from Florida's capital sentencing scheme contravenes this Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In the decision below, the Florida Supreme Court held that maintaining conformity with this Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence required eliminating Florida’s practice of conducting proportionality review of death sentences. Lawrence v. State, 308 So. 3d 544, 548 (Fla. 2020). The questions presented are: L Whether eliminating proportionality review from Florida’s capital sentencing scheme contravenes this Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, including Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 251 (1976) (upholding Florida’s thencurrent capital sentencing statute) and Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 50-51 (1984) (holding a state’s capital sentencing scheme is not required to include comparative proportionality review to satisfy the Eighth Amendment, as long as the scheme adequately narrows the class of cases in which death sentence may be imposed). Il. Whether eliminating a comparative review of the basis for imposing death sentences leaves individual defendants in Florida susceptible to being treated differently from those similarly situated without a rational justification for or appellate review of the distinction, in violation of the right to equal protection under the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. i Ill. Whether eliminating proportionality review from Florida’s capital sentencing scheme violates due process and the ex post facto prohibition of Article I, section 10 of the Federal Constitution. ii STATEMENT OF