Answer Brief of Appellee - Florida State University College of Law

claim is that his convictions for robbery, sexual battery and
kidnapping, which formed the basis of the during the course of
an enumerated felony aggravator, take his case outside of any
possible applicability of Ring. See, Fitzpatrick v. State, 900
So. 2d 495, 525 (Fla. 2005); Crain v. State, 894 So. 2d 59, 78
(Fla. 2004); Huggins v. State, 889 So. 2d 743, 772 (Fla. 2004);
Rodgers v. State, 29 Fla. L. Weekly S724 (Fla. Nov. 24, 2004).
Moreover, this Court has specifically rejected the claim that
Florida’s statute violates Ring. Fitzpatrick, supra; Huggins,
supra. This claim has no merit, and is not a basis for relief.
STATE’S CROSS-APPEAL
THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY ADMITTED
THE “PET-SCAN” EVIDENCE
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
During the history of this case, Hoskins has been
repeatedly evaluated by Dr. Krop, whose supposed “changed
testimony” led to the resentencing proceeding which was
concluded in November of 2004. What is significant is that the
ultimate sentencing order summarized Dr. Krop’s findings in the
following way:
Dr. Krop’s involvement with the Defendant and with
this case dates back to 1993. He first evaluated the
Defendant on October 18, 1993, and thereafter saw him
twice in 1994, once in 1998, and a final time on July
29, 2003. He had the police reports, all of the
Defendant’s relevant records and the relevant
depositions taken in this case. He consulted with Dr.
42