L. Whether Florida's capital sentencing scheme violates the Eighth Amendment because the controlling statute does not meaningfully limit the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty and Florida's elimination of proportionality review has removed an essential safeguard against arbitrary and inconsistent sentencing.

I. Under Florida's capital sentencing scheme, in addition to finding at least one aggravating factor exists, the factfinder must make additional determinations before a capital sentence can be imposed: (1) whether "sufficient aggravating factors exist," and (2) whether "aggravating factors exist which outweigh the mitigating circumstances." See Fla. Stat. § 921.141(2) (2021). The second question presented in this case is whether, considering the operation and effect of Florida's capital sentencing scheme, the Due Process Clause requires those additional determinations to be made beyond a reasonable doubt before the sentencer can choose to impose the death penalty, pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 476-85, 490, 494 n.19 (2000) and Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 603-05, 609 (2002).

III. Whether the Florida Supreme Court improperly extended the holding of Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 50-51 (1984), to limit Mr. Bevel's ability to argue to a jury that a death sentence was inappropriate.

Whether Florida's capital sentencing scheme violates the Eighth Amendment