source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    William Kenneth TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. William Kenneth Taylor, Petitioner, v. Kenneth S. Tucker, etc., Respondent.
    Nos. SC09-2417, SC10-2169.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    March 8, 2012.
    Rehearing Denied May 7, 2012.

      Bill Jennings, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Maria Perinetti and Mark S. Gruber, Assistant CCR Counsel, Middle Region, Tampa, FL, for Appellant/Petitioner.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, and Carol M. Dittmar, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, FL, for Appellee/Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

William Kenneth Taylor appeals the denial of his postconviction motion to vacate his convictions and sentences filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. Taylor’s convictions included a conviction of first-degree murder for which the trial court imposed a sentence of death. Taylor also petitions this Court for a writ of habe-as corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const. For the reasons provided below, we affirm the denial of Taylor’s rule 3.851 motion and deny his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Trial Court Proceedings

A jury convicted Taylor of first-degree murder and robbery with a firearm in connection with the death of Sandra Kushmer, attempted first-degree murder and robbery with a deadly weapon as to William Maddox, and armed burglary of a dwelling. See Taylor v. State, 937 So.2d 590, 596 (Fla.2006). The jury recommended death by a vote of twelve to zero. See id. at 597. The trial court followed the recommendation of the jury and sentenced Taylor to death for the murder of Ms. Kushmer. See id. On direct appeal, this Court detailed the following facts with regard to the crimes committed by Taylor:

At trial, Renata Sikes established that on Friday, May 25, 2001, she, along with her daughter Sandra Kushmer and her son William Maddox, went to visit her husband in the hospital. Kushmer and Maddox left the hospital in a rental car. At approximately 10:30 p.m. that night, Sikes called her home and spoke to Kushmer, who advised that “Ken” was there with Kushmer and Maddox, and, according to Sikes, it sounded as though she was having fun. Thirty minutes later, Sikes again called home to inform her children that she would remain at the hospital, but there was no answer. Sikes called her home repeatedly thereafter, but the calls were never answered. At approximately 3:30 p.m. on Saturday, May 26, 2001, Sikes returned home. Upon arriving, Sikes noticed that the rental car was gone, and she observed blood on the outside of her house. In addition, Sikes discovered her daughter’s medication, purse, and shoes lying outside on the ground. Upon entering the house, Sikes found Kushmer lying in a puddle of blood. As Sikes walked further into the house, she discovex-ed Maddox lying on the bed in a back bedroom. Sikes observed that Maddox’s face was black and blue, his pillow black with blood, but he was still alive. Sikes later determined that cameras belonging to her husband which had been stored in the closet of Maddox’s room were missing.
Cynthia Byrnes was working at Harry’s Country Bar on the night of Friday, May 25, 2001, the night of these events. She saw Kushmer and Maddox enter the bar that night, while Taylor was also present. According to Byrnes, Maddox was drinking the most expensive liquor sold at the bar, paying for his drinks with twenty-dollar bills, and leaving good tips. Byrnes testified that Maddox, Kushmer, and Taylor left the bar together.
On Saturday, May 26, 2001, Tommy Riley awoke to see Taylor on his doorstep. Later that morning, Taylor asked Riley to cash a $580 check, but Riley refused. The name on the two-party check was William Maddox, and it was from a bank in California, where Maddox lived. Later that evening, Taylor was in a bar where Riley worked as a bartender, paying for drinks with twenty-dollar bills. The following morning, Sunday, May 27, 2001, Riley was advised by an employee at Harry’s Bar, where Taylor, Kushmer, and Maddox had been the night of the murder, that detectives were looking for Taylor. Riley conveyed this information to Taylor, and he immediately left Riley’s house in his pickup truck.
The detective in charge of investigating these crimes obtained information that Maddox’s credit cards had been used in Tampa, Florida; Valdosta, Georgia; and Memphis, Tennessee. Based on this information, she contacted the United States Marshal’s Office in Tampa, which then relayed the information to the Marshal’s Office in Tennessee. Deputy Marshal Scott Sanders of the Memphis office received the information on May 29, 2001, from the Tampa office that two warrants for Taylor’s arrest for federal probation violations were outstanding and that Taylor might be in the Memphis area because he was believed to be in possession of credit cards that were being used in that location.
The Tennessee marshals located Taylor’s pickup truck at a motel, and he was taken into custody. Sanders wanted to search Taylor’s motel room at that time but he was unable to do so because he could not locate a Marshal’s Office consent form. He then obtained a consent form from the Shelby County Sheriffs Office, added the words “and the U.S. Marshals Office” to the top of the form, and filled it out, writing in the motel name and the room number to be searched. Sanders explained the form to Taylor and told him the consent form was for his motel room. According to Sanders, Taylor did not express any hesitation in signing the form.
The search of Taylor’s room revealed a checkbook wallet containing checks in the name of Bill Maddox, three credit cards issued to Maddox, credit card receipts, a ticket from a pawn shop in Memphis, a Discover credit card issued to Sandra Kushmer, and a Texaco card issued to Barry Sikes, which Renate [sic] Sikes testified she had given to Kushmer. Receipts dated May 29, 2001, indicated that the Maddox credit card had been used to purchase a gold chain and a wedding band. The pawn shop ticket with the same date indicated that Taylor had pawned the two items.
... [T]he lead Florida detective searched Taylor’s truck and found a black bag on the floorboard which contained cameras and camera accessories. The detective presented these items to Sikes, who identified them as belonging to her husband. The detective then went to a bar in Memphis at which Taylor had used the Maddox credit cards and spoke with Pamela Williams, who disclosed that Taylor had purchased drinks for her at the bar on the night of May 28, 2001, and introduced himself to her as William Maddox. She also showed the detective a note given to her by Taylor which he signed as “Bill Maddox” and identified himself as the owner of his own financial corporation.
After speaking with Williams, the detective returned to interview Taylor again. When Taylor was advised by the detective that she did not believe everything he had related the day before, Taylor told her the interview was over. However, Taylor continued to speak, and at one point, he said, “I shot her.”
The medical examiner, Dr. Lee Miller, testified that the cause of Kushmer’s death was a shotgun wound to the head that penetrated her arteries and veins, which caused her to bleed to death. Based on the available evidence, at the time of the shooting the shotgun had been pressed against Kushmer’s mouth. The wound path was consistent with Kushmer having been in a sitting position .... Additionally, the laceration on the back of Kushmer’s head was consistent with being struck by the butt of a shotgun.
A blood spatter expert opined that the blood smears on the outside wall of the Sikes home were likely caused by Kush-mer’s bloody hair. Further, high-velocity blood spatter located to the left of the smears indicated that the spatter was caused by a gunshot wound. The impact site was consistent with a victim who had been shot in the mouth while sitting or kneeling at the time. The blood patterns inside the Sikes home were consistent with Kushmer’s body having been carried into the home and swung in an arc-like manner before being dropped on the floor.
Latent fingerprints were lifted from beer bottles found in the garbage at the scene. A fingerprint expert matched one latent fingerprint with the known print of Taylor’s right index finger. The Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office collected the shotgun and the pawn ticket from the shop where Taylor had pawned the item. A different fingerprint examiner was of the opinion that a thumbprint on the pawn ticket from the shotgun transaction also matched the known fingerprints of Taylor. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement tested the shotgun, and two areas tested positive for blood. DNA testing on the blood from these two areas generated partial DNA profiles that matched the profile of Maddox at three and four genetic points.
After hearing the evidence, the jury rendered a verdict finding Taylor guilty of first-degree murder as to the death of Kushmer, attempted first-degree murder as to William Maddox, robbery with a deadly weapon as to Maddox, robbery with a firearm as to Kushmer, and armed burglary of a dwelling.

See Taylor, 937 So.2d at 592-96 (footnote omitted).

During the penalty phase, the trial court sentenced Taylor to death for the murder of Kushmer. See id,., 937 So.2d at 597. In rendering Taylor’s sentence, the trial court determined that the State had proven the existence of three statutory aggravators: (1) the murder was committed while Taylor was on felony probation, see § 921.141(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001); (2) Taylor had previously been convicted of a felony involving a threat of violence to the person, see § 921.141(5)(b), Fla. Stat. (2001); and (3) the murder was committed for pecuniary gain, see § 921.141(5)(f), Fla. Stat. (2001). See Taylor, 937 So.2d at 597. The trial court assigned each of these factors great weight. The court did not find any statutory mitigators, but found a total of thirteen nonstatutory mitigating circumstances: (1) Taylor was under some mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the crime (some weight); (2) psychological trauma due to abuse and neglect in formative years (some weight); (3) psychological trauma due to deprivation in parental nurturing (some weight); (4) stepfather provided no emotional or parental support (modest weight); (5) neurological impairments affecting ability to control impulses (some weight); (6) learning disabilities, attention deficit problems, and problems with social interactions (some weight); (7) obtained GED in prison (minimum weight); (8) attempts to address and recover from drug dependence (modest weight); (9) good worker and dependable employee (minimum weight); (10) agreed to be interviewed and cooperated with the police (minimum weight); (11) history of substance abuse dating back to pre-teen years (some weight); (12) under the influence of alcohol at time of crime (little weight); and (13) appropriate conduct during trial (little weight). See id. at 597 n. 3.

On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Taylor’s convictions and sentences. See id. at 592.

Postconviction Proceedings

On October 9, 2006, Taylor, pursuant to rule 3.851, filed a motion to vacate and set aside his convictions and sentences. That motion was subsequently supplanted by an amended motion to vacate. The claims in Taylor’s amended motion were trial counsel were ineffective for (i) misadvising Taylor with regal’d to the procedure to move to discharge court-appointed counsel; (ii) failure to investigate the effects of overmedieation of Taylor; (iii) prematurely ending plea negotiations; (iv) failing to obtain the assistance of a mental health expert to aid them in their plea discussions with Taylor; (v) failing to investigate and present evidence with regard to the link between low levels of serotonin and violent behavior; (vi) failing to advise the trial court about Taylor’s recent history of seizures and medications; (vii) failing to properly advise Taylor with regard to the option of entering a plea for only the guilt phase, or of waiving a penalty phase jury trial to avoid a twelve to zero jury recommendation; (viii) failing to call neuropsy-chologist Dr. Joseph Sesta, Ph.D., as a witness during the penalty phase; and (ix) stipulating to the existence of Taylor’s 1977 burglary conviction from Elko County, Nevada. Taylor also claimed (x) the lethal injection method of execution used in Florida constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and is unconstitutional; (xi) he will be incompetent at the time of execution, which renders his execution cruel and unusual punishment and unconstitutional; and (xii) the cumulative errors by trial counsel deprived him of a fair trial.

Taylor requested an evidentiary hearing for claims i-ix, and, after a Huff hearing, the postconviction court granted a hearing for claims i-vi and viii. The postconviction court determined that an evidentiary hearing was not required for claims vii and ix-xii. After the evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court rendered a final order that denied all of Taylor’s postconviction claims. This appeal followed.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

For a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, this Court follows the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and requires that a defendant satisfy the following two requirements:

First, the claimant must identify particular acts or omissions of the lawyer that are shown to be outside the broad range of reasonably competent performance under prevailing professional standards. Second, the clear, substantial deficiency shown must further be demonstrated to have so affected the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that confidence in the outcome is undermined. A court considering a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel need not make a specific ruling on the performance component of the test when it is clear that the prejudice component is not satisfied.

Maxwell v. Wainwright, 490 So.2d 927, 932 (Fla.1986) (citations omitted).

The Strickland test presents mixed questions of law and fact, which compels this Court to employ a mixed standard of review when it addresses those claims, deferring to the circuit court’s factual findings that are supported by competent, substantial evidence, but reviewing a circuit court’s legal conclusions de novo. See Seibert v. State, 64 So.3d 67, 75 (Fla.2010).

When addressing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a court employs a strong presumption that the performance of counsel was not ineffective. See id. It is the province of the defendant to overcome this presumption and the supposition that the challenged action was the product of sound trial strategy. See Pagan v. State, 29 So.3d 938, 949 (Fla.2009). Judicial scrutiny of the performance of counsel is, therefore, highly deferential. See id.

Strategic decisions of counsel do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel “ ‘if alternative courses have been considered and rejected and counsel’s decision was reasonable under the norms of professional conduct.’ ” Seibert, 64 So.3d at 79 (quoting Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037, 1048 (Fla.2000)). To fairly assess attorney performance, a court is required to make every possible effort to eliminate the distortion caused by hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances that surrounded the challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from the perspective of counsel at the time counsel engaged in the challenged conduct. See id.

The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to effective assistance of counsel at all critical stages of a criminal prosecution. See U.S. Const, amend. VI. In cases where a defendant is indigent, that defendant is entitled to court-appointed counsel. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.111(b)(1). A defendant may waive the right to counsel, so long as that waiver is conducted knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).

The right of a criminal defendant to effective assistance of counsel includes the right to competent counsel. See McKenzie v. State, 29 So.3d 272, 282-83 (Fla.2010). Mere unhappiness or anger with the representation of counsel, or disagreement with regard to counsel’s strategic decisions, does not render counsel ineffective. See id. If court-appointed counsel is alleged to be incompetent during the trial level proceedings, a trial court must conduct a Nelson hearing to inquire into the effectiveness of counsel. See Hardwick v. State, 521 So.2d 1071, 1074-75 (Fla.1988) (approving the procedure provided in Nelson v. State, 274 So.2d 256, 258-59 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), for an inquiry with regard to a claim of alleged ineffective assistance of counsel). However, a Nelson hearing is only required when the defendant provides a specific complaint to the trial court with regard to the ineffectiveness of counsel. See Guardado v. State, 965 So.2d 108, 113 (Fla.2007). A generalized complaint about counsel does not trigger a required Nelson hearing. See id. (“However, any [Nelson] inquiry by the trial court can only be as specific as the complaints made by the defendant. When the defendant makes generalized complaints about counsel, the trial court need not make a Nelson inquiry.”). If a defendant waives or discharges court-appointed counsel absent a finding of ineffectiveness by a trial court, the trial court is not required to appoint substitute counsel. See Hardwick, 521 So.2d at 1074-75 (quoting Nelson, 274 So.2d at 258-59).

The right to effective assistance of counsel also encompasses the right to conflict-free counsel. See Hunter v. State, 817 So.2d 786, 791 (Fla.2002). To establish ineffective assistance of counsel based on an alleged conflict of interest, the defendant must illustrate an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected the performance of counsel. See id. at 791-92. A defendant must illustrate the conflict through the identification and utilization of “specific evidence in the record that suggests that his or her interests were compromised.” Id. at 792. A mere speculative or hypothetical conflict of interest is insufficient to establish ineffective assistance of counsel based on an alleged conflict. See id. (quoting Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 350, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980)).

In this case, Taylor incorrectly contends that the postconviction court erred when it denied his claim that trial counsel were ineffective for failure to properly advise him with regard to how to move to discharge court-appointed counsel. As established during the evidentiary hearing and memorialized in a December 2002 letter to Taylor, trial counsel accurately advised Taylor with regard to the proper mechanism for seeking the removal of counsel. More specifically, they advised Taylor that his conclusive statements that a conflict of interest existed, and the fact that he was unhappy and dissatisfied with his representation and their strategic decisions, would not serve as a basis for disqualification of his current court-appointed trial counsel and appointment of new counsel. Rather, trial counsel properly advised that, to receive an appointment of new trial counsel, he must establish that current trial counsel had provided incompetent or otherwise ineffective assistance of counsel. They also properly informed Taylor that if he waived counsel and did not establish ineffectiveness of his current trial counsel, the trial court was not required to appoint new counsel.

Further, Taylor failed to establish prejudice caused by the advice of trial counsel. As illustrated during the postconviction proceedings, if trial counsel had moved to withdraw based on the allegations of Taylor, the trial court would not have held a Nelson hearing. That is because the only statement of Taylor that pertained to the purported ineffectiveness of counsel was a blank and generalized statement that a conflict of interest existed. Taylor did not provide any specific instance or basis to support his statement of a conflict of interest, or establish how he was prejudiced by his failure to move to have counsel discharged. Therefore, competent, substantial evidence supports the finding of the postconviction court that trial counsel were not ineffective, and this claim is without merit.

Next, Taylor contends that the postconviction court incorrectly denied his claim that trial counsel were ineffective for failure to properly investigate the effects of the alleged overmedication of Taylor. The performance of counsel is not deficient, even when counsel fails to seek a competency evaluation with regard to the effects of psychotropic medication, so long as there is no evidence that calls into question the competency of the defendant. See Groover v. State, 574 So.2d 97, 99 (Fla.1991). For example, in Groover, the defendant was administered large doses of Mellaril, a powerful antipsychotic medication, during his pretrial and trial incarceration. See id. This Court upheld the finding of the postconviction court that the failure of trial counsel to seek a competency evaluation with regard to the effects of this medication did not constitute deficient performance because there was no evidence that called the competency of the defendant into question. See id.

In this ease, trial counsel testified during the evidentiary hearing that they did not investigate the effects of Taylor’s medication because Taylor displayed no outward signs that his medication had any negative effects on his cognitive functions. According to trial counsel, Taylor appeared to be coherent and in full possession of his faculties, and he was engaged and active during the pretrial and trial proceedings. Trial counsel also testified that they did not notice any odd behavior that was indicative of a medication overdose.

The testimony of Dr. Donald Taylor, M.D., during the postconviction evidentia-ry hearing bolstered the validity of the testimony of trial counsel. Dr. Taylor testified concerning his four-hour competency evaluation of Taylor that occurred between the guilt and penalty phases of trial. Dr. Taylor stated that Taylor displayed no evidence of cognitive impairment or overmed-ication during this time. According to Dr. Taylor, Taylor appeared alert and engaged for the duration of the evaluation, and was able to relay to Dr. Taylor a detailed life and medical history, as well as an accurate description of the type and dosage of medication he was prescribed. We hold that competent, substantial evidence supports the postconviction court’s finding that trial counsel were not ineffective for their decision not to investigate the alleged overmedication of Taylor.

Taylor also claims that the postconviction court erred when it denied his claim that trial counsel were ineffective for prematurely ending plea discussions and for their failure to use a mental health expert during the plea discussions. A criminal defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel during the plea process. See Cottle v. State, 733 So.2d 963, 965 (Fla.1999). To establish ineffective assistance of counsel based upon the failure of trial counsel to convey a plea to a defendant, the defendant must prove that:

(1) counsel failed to communicate a plea offer or misinformed defendant concerning the penalty faced, (2) defendant would have accepted the plea offer but for the inadequate notice, and (3) acceptance of the State’s plea offer would have resulted in a lesser sentence.

Id. at 967 (emphasis added).

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.171(c) provides the obligations of trial counsel in connection with plea negotiations and the entry of a plea:

(c) Responsibilities of Defense Counsel.
(1) Defense counsel shall not conclude any plea agreement on behalf of a defendant-client without the client’s full and complete consent thereto, being certain that any decision to plead guilty or nolo contendere is made by the defendant.
(2) Defense counsel shall advise defendant of:
(A) all plea offers; and
(B) all pertinent matters bearing on the choice of which plea to enter and the particulars attendant upon each plea and the likely results thereof, as well as any possible alternatives that may be open to the defendant.

(Emphasis added.) In accordance with this rule, defense counsel have a duty to obtain the consent of a defendant before they execute a plea agreement on behalf of that defendant, and to advise the defendant of all plea offers and pertinent matters with regard to a plea. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.171. There is, however, no explicit, delineated duty provided in rule 3.171 that requires counsel to ever seek the aid of a third party or mental health expert during the plea discussions. See id.

In this case, the postconviction court’s finding that trial counsel were not ineffective during the plea negotiations was supported by competent, substantial evidence. As established during the postconviction evidentiary hearing, trial counsel believed that it was in the best interest of Taylor to plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence to avoid the death penalty. In February 2003, trial counsel — with the consent of Taylor — explored such a plea offer with the State. However, before the State responded, Taylor decided to rescind his consent to explore a plea offer. Regardless of Taylor’s actions, the State and its homicide committee rejected that offer before it could be withdrawn by trial counsel. Then, in March 2004, immediately before the start of trial, the State approached defense counsel concerning the possibility of a plea offer, contingent on the assurance of Taylor that he would accept such a formal offer if made. When defense counsel approached Taylor, he rejected that plea possibility, which resulted in the State’s decision to not proceed further with any formal plea offer.

The actions of trial counsel during the plea discussions were in accord with prevailing professional norms and they followed rule 3.171, i.e., trial counsel did not make or accept a plea offer without the consent of Taylor. Further, trial counsel cannot be held ineffective for their actions during the plea process because Taylor has failed to establish prejudice, i.e., that he would have accepted a formal plea offer if one was made. See Cottle, 733 So.2d at 967. Rather, all evidence presented during the postconviction proceedings illustrated that Taylor wavered between whether to accept a plea or reject a plea, which resulted in a decision to reject a plea offer, as well as a decision to not pursue a possible plea offer by the State.

Furthermore, competent, substantial evidence supports the postconviction court’s finding that trial counsel were not ineffective in their decision not to engage the assistance of a mental health expert during the plea discussions with Taylor. As previously discussed, Taylor appeared competent and engaged during the trial proceedings. Dr. Taylor also testified that when he interviewed the defendant in 2004, Taylor was competent and displayed no sign of cognitive impairment. Thus, trial counsel did not perform deficiently when they did not obtain the assistance of a mental health expert during the plea negotiations because trial counsel reasonably concluded that the aid of such a mental health expert was not needed due to the apparent competency of Taylor during the plea negotiations.

Taylor has also failed to establish prejudice from trial counsel’s decision not to utilize the assistance of a mental health expert during plea negotiations. More specifically, Taylor did not present evidence to establish that the outcome of the trial court proceedings would have been different if plea discussions included a third party expert, i.e., he did not establish that, if a mental health expert had participated in the plea discussions, he would have altered his decision to reject a plea possibility and would have accepted a plea offer. Accordingly, Taylor fails under the prejudice prong of Strickland. See Cottle, 733 So.2d at 967 (stating that to prove ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to plea discussions, the defendant must establish that if counsel acted differently, he or she would have accepted a possible plea).

Taylor further contends that the postconviction court incorrectly denied his claim that trial counsel were ineffective for their failure to investigate the alleged link between Taylor’s low levels of serotonin and his violent behavior, and for their failure to present evidence of Taylor’s alleged seizures and seizure medication. To determine if counsel was ineffective for failure to present evidence of mitigation, a court will examine not only the failure to investigate and present possibly mitigating evidence, but the reasons for doing so. See Jones v. State, 998 So.2d 573, 582 (Fla.2008). The defendant must also establish that the performance of counsel deprived him or her of a reliable penalty proceeding. See id.

Although counsel is not required to conduct a mental health evaluation for mitigation purposes in every capital case, he or she does have a strict duty to reasonably investigate the background of a defendant for possible mitigating evidence. See id. at 583. When available information points to the existence of mental health issues, an evaluation is fundamental to a proper defense against the death penalty. See id. However, a mere conclusive allegation that the presentation of mental health evidence would have changed the outcome of a proceeding is insufficient to prove prejudice. See id. at 584. Rather, the defendant must establish that had the evidence been presented, there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of the relevant proceeding would have been different. See id. More specifically, in the context of deficient performance during the penalty phase, a defendant establishes prejudice by showing that, absent the deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the trial court’s balancing of aggravators and mitigators would have been different, or that confidence in the outcome of the penalty phase has been substantially impaired or undermined. See id. at 585; see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (“A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”).

In this case, competent, substantial evidence supports the finding of the postcon-viction court that trial counsel did not act deficiently when they did not present evidence with regard to the alleged low levels of serotonin of Taylor at the time of the homicide. Although Dr. James R. Meri-kangas, M.D., testified at the postconviction evidentiary hearing that Taylor may have low serotonin, Taylor failed to establish that in fact he had low serotonin either permanently or at the time of the homicide. In fact, during the postconviction evidentiary hearing, Dr. Merikangas could not confirm that Taylor ever had low serotonin and admitted that the serotonin levels of Taylor had never been physically tested. Dr. Joseph John Sesta, Ph.D., also testified during the evidentiary hearing and stated that he could not confirm to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Taylor ever had low levels of serotonin, or that such a serotonin deficiency existed at the time of the homicide.

Further, Taylor failed to establish how the decision of trial counsel to not present evidence of his alleged low serotonin prejudiced him. He did not provide testimony as to how the presentation of such evidence would have led to the mitigation of his sentence, or how its absence exacerbated the severity of the recommended sentence of the jury. It is also a dubious proposition that testimony with regard to low serotonin would have altered the jury’s unanimous recommended sentence of death, especially given the penalty phase evidence presented with regard to the mental health issues of Taylor. That evidence included the testimony of Dr. Harry Krop, Ph.D., which provided a detailed description of the asserted cognitive impairments of Taylor that included frontal lobe syndrome and brain injuries, as well as a litany of mental health diagnoses that included adjustment disorder, depression, borderline personality disorder, and antisocial personality disorder. Dr. Krop also testified during the penalty phase that Taylor abused alcohol and was intoxicated at the time of the homicide, which, along with his mental health disorders, affected his ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. Included in Dr. Krop’s testimony were factors with regard to the emotional and physical abuse Taylor suffered as a child. Accordingly, competent, substantial evidence exists to support the postconviction court’s finding that trial counsel were not ineffective in their failure to present evidence of Taylor’s alleged low serotonin.

There is also competent, substantial evidence to support the postconviction court’s finding that trial counsel were not deficient in their failure to advise the trial court about the alleged recent history of Taylor’s seizures and his seizure medications. During the evidentiary hearing, there was a third-party report that Taylor suffered a seizure while he was incarcerated in 2001, as well as evidence presented of seizure medications prescribed to Taylor while incarcerated for this crime, i.e., Dilantin and Depakote. During the postcon-viction hearing, Dr. Merikangas opined that Taylor had a seizure disorder. Despite this evidence, given the medical history of Taylor, uncertainty existed nonetheless as to whether Taylor even suffered from a seizure disorder. More specifically, Taylor, while incarcerated from 1991 to 2000, was not prescribed seizure medication because an EEG exam performed on him in 1991 revealed no seizure disorder and normal brain activity. The testimony of Dr. Taylor compounded the uncertainty as to the existence of a seizure disorder. He testified that in 2006 Taylor reported to him that he suffered no recent seizures and questioned whether he even suffered from a seizure disorder because all he ever experienced were mere blackout spells.

Therefore, given the disputed evidence that surrounded the alleged seizure disorder, there was competent, substantial evidence to support the finding that trial counsel did not act deficiently when they failed to advise the trial court about Taylor’s alleged recent seizures and seizure medications. Even if trial counsel were deficient, Taylor failed to establish how he was prejudiced by the performance of trial counsel. As supported by the record, trial counsel presented extensive mitigation evidence of Taylor’s mental health, emotional, and physical issues during the penalty phase. Taylor has failed to establish how the mere addition of equivocal and disputed evidence of alleged recent seizures and seizure prescriptions would have altered the unanimous recommendation of the death penalty by the jury. Therefore, the postconviction court was correct in finding that Taylor is not entitled to relief.

In Taylor’s next claim, he contends that the postconviction court incorrectly denied his claim that trial counsel were ineffective for their failure to present Dr. Sesta as a witness during the penalty phase. This Court has consistently held that the strategic decision of trial counsel not to present a certain witness does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if that decision was the product of a reasonable trial strategy. See Everett v. State, 54 So.3d 464, 474 (Fla.2010). For example, in Bowles v. State, 979 So.2d 182, 188 (Fla.2008), this Court held that the decision to not present a mental health expert did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel because that decision, given the possible damaging effects of the witness’s testimony, was based on a reasonable trial strategy.

As addressed during the postconviction evidentiary hearing, trial counsel, although they respected Dr. Sesta and his credentials, strategically did not think that Dr. Sesta would have been a positive witness for Taylor. Among the numerous reasons was that Dr. Sesta unilaterally conducted psychological testing of Taylor that trial counsel did not consider helpful or useful to the disposition of Taylor’s case, i.e., Dr. Sesta performed a personality test on Taylor even though trial counsel did not request this testing. It was also established at the evidentiary hearing that trial counsel did not consider the prospect of Dr. Sesta’s testimony or results of his testing — along with his accompanying diagnosis of Taylor — to be beneficial to Taylor because the opinion would have conflicted with the testimony of other defense witnesses, Dr. Krop and Dr. David McCra-ney, M.D. More specifically, Dr. Sesta’s testimony would have conflicted with that of Dr. McCraney and Dr. Krop with regard to the brain impairment of Taylor— i.e., its severity, etiology, and time of occurrence — with Dr. McCraney and Dr. Krop finding the brain damage of Taylor to be more severe. Therefore, to avoid a conflict in opinion testimony -with regard to the personality disorder and brain impairment of Taylor, trial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision to present the testimony of Dr. Krop and Dr. McCraney, and not Dr. Sesta.

In addition, Taylor contends that the postconviction court acted incorrectly when it denied his claim that the cumulative errors of trial counsel deprived him of a fair trial. Taylor has failed to establish any meritorious claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Therefore, there are no cumulative errors of trial counsel that equate to a degradation of his fundamental right to a fair trial. See Bradley v. State, 33 So.3d 664, 684 (Fla.2010) (holding that when the errors raised by a defendant are meritless, procedurally barred, or fail to meet the Strickland requirements, the contention of cumulative error is without merit).

Lastly, Taylor contends that he will be subject to cruel and unusual punishment at the time of execution because he is not legally competent. Taylor concedes that this claim is not ripe for review by this Court. Therefore, no relief is warranted. See Anderson v. State, 18 So.3d 501, 522 (Fla.2009) (stating that when a defendant concedes that a claim is not ripe for review because he has not been declared incompetent and no death warrant has been signed, and that he has raised it only for preservation purposes, no relief is warranted).

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

In his petition for writ of habeas corpus, Taylor contends that his counsel on direct appeal was ineffective because she raised only boilerplate issues on direct appeal, improperly contested the constitutionality of the standard penalty phase jury instructions when a special instruction was given, and failed to raise meritorious issues that had been presented before the trial court.

A claimant appropriately raises a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1069 (Fla.2000). Consistent with the Strickland standard, to grant ha-beas relief based on ineffectiveness of appellate counsel, this Court must determine

first, whether the alleged omissions are of such magnitude as to constitute a serious error or substantial deficiency falling measurably outside the range of professionally acceptable performance and, second, whether the deficiency in performance compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence in the correctness of the result.

Pope v. Wainwright, 496 So.2d 798, 800 (Fla.1986). In raising such a claim, the defendant bears the burden to allege specific, serious omissions or overt acts upon which a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel may be based. See Freeman, 761 So.2d at 1069; see also Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997, 1001 (Fla.1981).

In this case, appellate counsel performed deficiently when she challenged the constitutionality of a standard penalty phase jury instruction on direct appeal because that instruction was not given by the trial court. More specifically, on direct appeal, this Court rejected the challenge to the standard jury instruction by appellate counsel because we have repeatedly determined that the specific instruction did not shift the burden of proof to the defendant and was constitutional. See Taylor v. State, 937 So.2d 590, 600 (Fla.2006). This Court also rejected that challenge because the trial court did not use the standard jury instruction, but rather, used a special instruction that informed the jury that it could recommend a sentence of death only if it found that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances. See id. Thus, when appellate counsel contested the standard jury instruction instead of the special instruction that had been given by the trial court, she performed deficiently because a reasonable attorney who acted within professional norms would not have contested the validity of a jury instruction that was not read by the trial court.

However, Taylor has failed to establish how the deficient performance of appellate counsel prejudiced him to such a degree that it undermined confidence in the correctness of the result of his direct appeal. Taylor has failed to establish how the decision to contest the standard instruction deprived him of a meaningful direct appeal, or how the decision of appellate counsel negatively affected the result of his direct appeal. Even if appellate counsel had contested the special instruction, the outcome of Taylor’s direct appeal would not have been altered because the more detailed, special instruction would probably have been affirmed as proper.

Lastly, Taylor has failed to sufficiently establish either deficient performance or prejudice emanating from the alleged error by appellate counsel for raising boilerplate issues rather than allegedly meritorious issues on direct appeal. Taylor merely lists an abundance of claims that appellate counsel could have raised on direct appeal. He does not provide a factual or legal basis as to why appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise those claims. Therefore, Taylor has failed to provide a sufficient basis for which this Court may grant relief.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the postconviction court’s denial of Taylor’s rule 3.851 motion and deny Taylor’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs in result.

      . Huff v. State, 622 So.2d 982 (Fla.1993).


author: CANADY, C.J.

text:
    DELTA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, etc., Petitioner, v. PROFILE INVESTMENTS, INC., et al., Respondents.
    No. SC09-2075.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    March 8, 2012.
    Rehearing Denied May 4, 2012.

      John R. Hargrove and W. Kent Brown of Hargrove Pierson and Brown, P.A. Boca Raton, FL, and John R. Beranek of Ausley and McMullen, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner.

      William S. Graessle, Jacksonville, FL, for Respondent.
    Kenza van Assenderp and Timothy R. Qualls of Young van Assenderp, P.A., on behalf of the Florida Tax Collectors, Inc.; Loree L. French, Senior Assistant General Counsel, Jacksonville, FL, on behalf of the Property Appraiser, Tax Collector and Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts for Duval County, FL; and Elliott Messer and Thomas M. Findley of Messer, Caparello and Self, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, on behalf of Florida Association of Property Appraisers, as Amici Curiae.
   CANADY, C.J.

This case presents the latest round in protracted litigation regarding the validity of a tax deed. Delta Property Management seeks review of Profile Investments, Inc. v. Delta Property Management, Inc. (Delta V), 19 So.3d 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), in which the First District Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment voiding a tax deed and quieting title to certain real property in Delta. In its decision, the First District concluded that because Delta had not previously argued — in an earlier round of litigation which resulted in an appeal — that once notice sent by certified mail was returned undeliverable the Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts for Duval County was required to take additional steps to provide notice to the property owner of the tax sale, the trial court was bound by the law of the case and therefore erred in applying Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 126 S.Ct. 1708, 164 L.Ed.2d 415 (2006), and Vosilla v. Rosado, 944 So.2d 289 (Fla.2006), cases which recognized the due process requirements for adequate notice of an impending tax sale. The First District’s conclusion that a question of law not litigated on appeal may constitute the law of the case expressly and directly conflicts with Florida Department of Transportation v. Juliano, 801 So.2d 101, 107 (Fla.2001), which held that the law-of-the-case doctrine “bars consideration only of those legal issues that were actually considered and decided in a former appeal.” We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

We conclude that the First District improperly applied the law-of-the-case doctrine and that the validity of the tax deed in this case should be determined by applying Jones and Vosilla. We further conclude that because the Clerk failed to take reasonable, additional steps to provide notice to Delta upon learning that the notice sent by certified mail was not successfully delivered, the tax deed is invalid. We, therefore, quash the First District’s decision and remand with instructions that the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Delta be affirmed.

I. BACKGROUND

In 1997, Delta owned a commercial property located in Jacksonville, Florida. Delta failed to pay the 1997 ad valorem taxes on that property, and as a result, the Duval County Tax Collector issued a tax certificate. In 1998, Profile purchased the tax certificate, and two years later after Delta failed to redeem the tax certificate, Profile applied for a tax deed on the property pursuant to section 197.502(1), Florida Statutes (1999). Thereafter, the Tax Collector, pursuant to section 197.502(4), Florida Statutes (1999), prepared a statement, specifying Delta as a party entitled to notice of the sale of the property and listing Delta’s address as it appeared on the 1999 tax assessment roll — 8701 Phillips Highway, # 104, Jacksonville, Florida 32256.

On May 30, 2000, the Tax Collector forwarded the statement to the Clerk. The Clerk prepared a notice of tax sale, which on September 1, 2000, was mailed by certified mail to Delta at the address indicated in the Tax Collector’s statement. Because Delta was no longer located at the address specified in the statement, the notice was returned to the Clerk as undeliverable. Subsequently, on September 27, 2000, Profile placed the winning bid at the tax sale.

Following issuance of the tax deed, Profile brought an action to quiet title to the property. Delta counterclaimed, asserting that the Clerk was required to check the 2000 tax assessment roll, which contained its new address — 410 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard, # 201, Hallandale, Florida 33009 — before issuing the tax sale notice.

Profile and Delta both moved for summary judgment. Profile asserted that the tax deed was valid because it was undisputed that notice was sent to Delta in accordance with section 197.522(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1999). In contrast, Delta asserted that the tax deed was invalid because the Clerk failed to comply with the notice requirements of sections 197.502 and 197.522, Florida Statutes (1999). The trial court granted final summary judgment in favor of Profile, concluding that the Clerk was not required to look beyond the Tax Collector’s statement to determine whether the names and addresses of the parties were correctly listed.

On appeal, the First District Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court’s analysis and affirmed the final summary judgment. Delta Prop. Mgmt. v. Profile Invs., Inc. (Delta I), 830 So.2d 867, 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Judge Ervin dissented, reasoning that the Florida Statutes required the Clerk to mail the notice of the tax sale to the address of the legal titleholder as listed in the latest tax assessment roll, which on September 1, 2001, was presumptively the 2000 tax assessment roll. Id. at 872 (Ervin, J., dissenting).

This Court granted review of Delta I on the basis that the decision affected a class of constitutional officers — circuit court clerks. Delta asserted that the First District erred by “ignor[ing] due process” and “fail[ing] to give meaning to the controlling statutes.” We found Judge Ervin’s dissent persuasive and determined that

the clerk of the circuit court, when mailing the notice of a tax deed sale to the titleholder of the affected property, must mail the notice to the address of the titleholder as listed in the latest tax assessment roll. If the tax assessment roll is updated after the clerk receives a statement from the tax collector but pri- or to mailing the notice to the titleholder, the clerk must look at the new assessment roll to see if the titleholder’s address has changed and, if the clerk finds that the address has changed, the clerk must mail the notice to the new address listed in the latest assessment roll.

Delta Prop. Mgmt., Inc. v. Profile Invs., Inc. (Delta II), 875 So.2d 443, 443-44 (Fla.2004). After noting that the Clerk waited more than three months before setting the tax sale and sending notice, we determined that the Clerk should have mailed the notice to Delta’s new address if that address was “reasonably ascertainable” from the latest tax assessment roll. Id. at 448 (quoting Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 800, 103 S.Ct. 2706, 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983)). Accordingly, we quashed the First District’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. Id.

On remand, Delta filed a motion to implement this Court’s mandate, and Profile again moved for summary judgment. Profile contended that because the 2000 assessment roll had not been certified prior to the Clerk’s mailing notice to Delta, the 2000 assessment role was unavailable to the Clerk when notice was sent to Delta. The trial court denied Profile’s motion for summary judgment and granted Delta’s motion to implement the mandate. The trial court reasoned that because in the earlier proceedings Profile asserted that there were no disputed factual issues and the Clerk’s rebanee on the tax collector’s statement had been legally sufficient, Profile should not be permitted to present new evidence and raise a new defense on remand. The trial court then issued an order granting summary judgment in Delta’s favor.

On appeal, the First District reversed the trial court’s order, holding that summary judgment was not appropriate because there was a material factual dispute about whether Delta’s new address was reasonably ascertainable from the latest tax assessment roll available at the time the Clerk mailed notice. The First District remanded the case, directing the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing. Profile Invs., Inc. v. Delta Prop. Mgmt., Inc. (Delta III), 913 So.2d 661, 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), revieiv denied, 929 So.2d 1052 (Fla.2006).

Back at the trial court, Profile and Delta again filed dueling motions for summary judgment. The trial court found that the preliminary 2000 tax assessment roll was available to the Clerk in September 2000 and that had the Clerk requested the preliminary roll, it “could have been used to verify and update the addresses and names of addressees for its notices.” The trial court declined, however, to make a finding regarding whether Delta’s updated address was reasonably ascertainable from the latest assessment roll. The trial court concluded that the question was rendered moot by two intervening decisions: Jones and Vosilla.

Specifically, the trial court accepted Delta’s argument that Jones and Vosilla require a clerk to take additional steps— beyond those mandated by statute — to provide notice to a titleholder if the clerk has reason to believe that the address to which notice was sent by certified mail is no longer the titleholder’s correct address. The trial court reasoned that once the mailed notice was returned as undeliverable, the Clerk had reason to believe that the Tax Collector’s statement no longer reflected the titleholder’s correct address and should have taken additional reasonable measures to notify Delta. Accordingly, the trial court granted Delta’s motion for summary judgment and adjudged Profile’s tax deed to be void.

The First District dismissed the resulting appeal, determining that the trial court’s order was not an appealable order because it did not directly determine the immediate right to possession of the property. Profile Invs., Inc. v. Delta Prop. Mgmt., Inc. (Delta IV), 957 So.2d 70, 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). In response, the trial court issued an amended order granting summary judgment to Delta and a final judgment declaring Profile’s tax deed to be void, quieting title in Delta, and awarding Delta an immediate writ of possession for the property.

On the third appeal to the district court, the First District-in the decision now on review — concluded that the trial court failed to rule within the scope of Delta II. The First District further concluded that based on the record before the trial court, the 2000 assessment roll was not available to the Clerk when the notice was mailed. Citing the doctrine of the law of the case, the First District declined to apply Jones and Vosilla, reversed the summary judgment in favor of Delta, and remanded the case with instructions to enter final summary judgment in favor of Profile on the validity of the tax deed. Delta V, 19 So.3d at 1017-19.

Delta petitioned this Court to review Delta V, asserting that the decision affected a class of constitutional officers and expressly and directly conflicted with decisions of this Court and other district courts of appeal. As stated above, we granted review based on express and direct conflict with Juliano, which held that the law-of-the-case doctrine “bars consideration only of those legal issues that were actually considered and decided in a former appeal.” 801 So.2d at 107.

II. ANALYSIS

In the analysis that follows, we first resolve the conflict between the First District’s decision and our decision in Juliano. We then address Delta’s contention that because it was not given constitutionally adequate notice of the tax sale, Profile’s tax deed is invalid.

The law-of-the-case doctrine is the long-established “principle that the questions of law decided on appeal to a court of ultimate resort must govern the case in the same court and the trial court, through all subsequent stages of the proceedings.” McGregor v. Provident Trust Co. of Philadelphia, 119 Fla. 718, 162 So. 323, 327 (1935). The purpose of the doctrine is “to lend stability to judicial decisions and the jurisprudence of the state, as well as to avoid ‘piecemeal’ appeals and to bring litigation to an end as expeditiously as possible.” Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla.1965).

In Juliano, this Court distinguished the doctrine of res judicata, which applies to subsequent actions between the same parties on the same cause of action, from the law-of-the-case doctrine, which is triggered where successive appeals are taken in the same case. We again explained that “the law of the case requires that questions of law actually decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court and the trial court, through all subsequent stages of the proceedings” and that “a trial court is bound to follow prior rulings of the appellate court as long as the facts on which such decision are based continue to be the facts of the case.” Juliano, 801 So.2d at 105-06.

In addition, this Court expressly addressed the misconception that the law-of-the-case doctrine could bar consideration of a legal question that was not previously raised and decided on appeal but, given the facts of the case, could have been raised in a prior appeal. We followed our decision in U.S. Concrete Pipe Co. v. Bould, 437 So.2d 1061, 1063 (Fla.1983), which determined that the doctrine of the law of the case is limited to rulings on questions of law actually presented and considered on a former appeal, and emphasized that “[a] corollary of the law of the case doctrine is that a lower court is not precluded from passing on issues that ‘have not necessarily been determined and become law of the case.’ ” Juliano, 801 So.2d at 106 (quoting Greene v. Massey, 384 So.2d 24, 27 (Fla.1980)). We also expressly receded from Airvac, Inc. v. Ranger Insurance Co., 330 So.2d 467 (Fla.1976), to the extent that decision implied that the law-of-the-case doctrine could be applied to an issue not previously decided on appeal. See Juliano, 801 So.2d at 107.

We adhere to our decisions in Juli-ano on this point. We again conclude that the law-of-the-case doctrine is not applicable to a legal question that has not yet been decided on appeal. Accordingly, the First District erred in concluding that because Delta did not previously raise the issue of whether once the certified mail was returned undeliverable the Clerk was required to take additional steps to provide notice, the issue was barred by the doctrine of the law of the case.

Because we conclude that the trial court was not barred from considering Delta’s argument based on Jones and Vo- silla, we must consider whether the trial court correctly concluded on that basis that Delta was entitled to relief from the tax sale.

At the time of the tax sale in this case, section 197.332(1), Florida Statutes (1999), authorized county tax collectors to sell tax certificates on real property to collect delinquent taxes. If a holder of a tax certificate applied for a tax deed, the tax collector was to deliver to the clerk of the circuit court a statement listing the persons who were to be notified prior to the sale of the property, including “[a]ny legal titleholder of record” and “[a]ny person to whom the property was assessed on the tax roll for the year in which the property was last assessed.” § 197.502(4)(a), (f), Fla. Stat. (1999). The statute further provided that for purposes of the tax collector’s statement, “if the legal titleholder of record is the same as the person to whom the property was assessed on the tax roll for the year in which the property was last assessed, then the notice may only be mailed to the address of the legal titleholder as it appears on the latest assessment roll.” § 197.502(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1999). Additional statutes set out the clerk’s responsibilities in regard to a tax sale. One of the clerk’s statutory obligations was to “notify, by certified mail with return receipt requested ... the persons listed in the tax collector’s statement pursuant to s. 197.502(4) that an application for a tax deed has been made.” § 197.522(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1999).

The United States Supreme Court has explained that to satisfy due process, notice must be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). The Supreme Court has further explained that whether a particular method of notice is “reasonably calculated” to provide adequate notice requires “due regard for the practicalities and peculiarities of the case.” Id. at 314, 70 S.Ct. 652. In Dawson v. Saada, 608 So.2d 806, 808 (Fla.1992), we concluded that section 197.522(1) mandates “notice reasonably calculated to apprise landowners of the pending deprivation of their property” and thus is facially constitutional.

In the instant case, however, Delta raises an as-applied challenge to the notice requirements of section 197.522. Delta asserts that because the Clerk knew the notice mailed pursuant to section 197.522 was ineffective, due process required the Clerk to take additional reasonable steps to notify Delta of the tax sale. We agree. Jones establishes- — -and Vosilla acknowledges — that where a notice sent by certified mail is returned undeliverable, the clerk of court must take additional reasonable steps to notify a titleholder of the upcoming tax sale.

In Jones, the Arkansas Commissioner of State Lands attempted to notify property owner Jones of his tax delinquency and his right to redeem the property. The Commissioner sent notice by certified mail to the property’s address, but the certified letter, marked unclaimed, was returned to the Commissioner. After an offer to purchase the property was received, the Commissioner mailed another certified letter to the same address. This letter also was returned unclaimed, and the property was sold. Upon learning of the sale, Jones filed suit, alleging that the Commissioner’s failure to provide notice of the sale resulted in the taking of his property without due process. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed. 547 U.S. at 224-25, 126 S.Ct. 1708. The United States Supreme Court overturned the decision, concluding that “when mailed notice of a tax sale is returned unclaimed, the State must take additional reasonable steps to attempt to provide notice to the property owner before selling his property, if it is practicable to do so.” Id. at 225, 126 S.Ct. 1708. The Supreme Court reasoned that, while due process does not require that a property owner receive actual notice of a tax sale, the “government’s knowledge that notice pursuant to the normal procedure was ineffective triggered an obligation on the government’s part to take additional steps to effect notice.” Id. at 230, 126 S.Ct. 1708.

The Supreme Court suggested reasonable steps that the Arkansas taxing authorities could have taken to attempt to notify Jones, such as resending notice to Jones by regular mail, posting notice on the front door of the property, or sending a notice addressed to “occupant” by regular mail. Id. at 235, 126 S.Ct. 1708. The Supreme Court did not, however, hold that the taxing authorities must adopt any specific notice procedures. Instead, the Supreme Court recognized that the states have “taken a variety of approaches” to provide notice of tax sales and expressly left to the individual states the question of “how to proceed in response to [its] conclusion that notice was inadequate” in Jones’s case. Id,, at 238,126 S.Ct. 1708.

A few months later in Vosilla, this Court also addressed the issue of whether Florida clerks must make an additional effort to notify titleholders of tax sales where— prior to the tax sale — the clerk learns that the attempt at providing notice by certified mail was ineffective. Vosilla arose from an action to quiet title to a property in Altamonte Springs. After Julio and Nan-nette Rosado failed to pay their 1997 ad valorem taxes, the county tax collector issued a tax certificate for the property. In September 1998, the Rosados notified the tax collector of a new mailing address for any correspondence regarding the Alta-monte Springs property, and in February 2000, the Rosados notified the clerk of court via certified mail that their mailing address had again changed. The clerk acknowledged receipt of the certified letter.

In April 2000, the holder of the tax certificate applied for a tax deed. Although the Rosados had notified both the tax collector and the clerk of their change of address, the Rosados’ address was not updated in the tax assessment roll, and the clerk mailed notice of the tax sale to the Altamonte Springs address. The return receipt for the certified mail indicated that someone other than the Rosados signed for the notice. In December 2000, the Altamonte Springs residence was sold to an individual purchaser, who later conveyed the property to a group of individuals collectively referred to as Vosilla.

Vosilla filed a complaint in the trial court to quiet title to the property. The Rosados answered that because they had notified the tax collector and the clerk of their change of address, the clerk’s notice was not reasonably calculated to apprise them of the tax deed sale and therefore was constitutionally inadequate. At trial, the Rosados also presented evidence that prior to the tax deed sale, the sheriffs office had informed the clerk that the Ro-sados no longer resided at the Altamonte Springs property.

The trial court found that the failure of the Rosados to receive notice was “completely the fault of the taxing agencies” but concluded that the unsuccessful notice did not violate the Rosados’ right to due process of law because the notice was sent in compliance with section 197.522(1), Florida Statutes (2000). Vosilla, 944 So.2d at 292. On appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed and certified conflict. The Fifth District determined that the notice did not satisfy due process because it “was not reasonably calculated to apprise the Rosados of the impending tax deed sale where the tax collector knew or should have known that the address listed on the tax [assessment] roll was incorrect.” Id. at 292-93 (alteration in original) (quoting Rosado v. Vosilla, 909 So.2d 505, 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)).

This Court approved the Fifth District’s decision. We concluded that because the Rosados had informed the tax authorities of their new mailing address, the return receipt was not signed by either of the Rosados, and the sheriff informed the clerk that the Rosados no longer resided at the Altamonte Springs property, “the clerk of court knew or reasonably should have known that the notice was sent to the Rosados at an incorrect address” and therefore the notice sent “was not reasonably calculated” to apprise the Rosados of the tax deed sale. Id. at 300. We further explained that given the “practicalities and peculiarities” of the Rosado’s ease, “due process required that the clerk of court take additional reasonable steps to notify the Rosados of the tax deed sale prior to selling their property.” Id. at 301 (quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314, 70 S.Ct. 652). In the Rosados’ case, the clerk of court likely would have discovered an updated address for the Rosados had it checked its own records for a change of address submission.

In the instant case, the Clerk had reason to know that the notice of the tax sale intended for Delta had been sent to an incorrect address. On September 1, 2000, the Clerk mailed notice to Delta by certified mail, and before the tax sale on September 27, 2000, the notice was returned to the Clerk as undeliverable. Upon learning that delivery of the notice to Delta was unsuccessful, the Clerk was not entitled to “simply ignore that information ... and sell the owner’s property.” Jones, 547 U.S. at 237, 126 S.Ct. 1708. Pursuant to Jones and Vosilla, the Clerk had a duty to take additional, reasonable steps to attempt to provide notice to the legal titleholder before selling the property. As identified by those decisions, those reasonable steps depend on the particular circumstances of the case and may include: checking the records of the taxing authorities for a change of address submitted by the legal titleholder; resending notice by regular mail so that no signature is required; posting notice on the property to be sold, not merely at the last known address of the titleholder; or sending a notice addressed to “occupant” by regular mail. See Jones, 547 U.S. at 235, 126 S.Ct. 1708; Vosilla, 944 So.2d at 301.

Profile concedes that in this case the Clerk did not make any additional effort to locate Delta after the certified mail was returned undelivered. Furthermore, in her deposition, Mildred Wootson, who worked as the Court Operations Supervisor for the Duval County Tax Deed Department beginning in March of 1999, testified that when the Clerk’s office received the certified mail receipt indicating that the notice sent to Delta was not successfully delivered, the Clerk “did nothing else” to effect notice. In light of this admitted inaction, Delta was “no better off than if the notice had never been sent.” Jones, 547 U.S. at 230, 126 S.Ct. 1708 (quoting Malone v. Robinson, 614 A.2d 38, 37 (D.C. 1992) (per curiam)). Because the Clerk’s office did not take any additional reasonable steps to notify the property owner after it learned that the attempt to provide notice by certified mail was unsuccessful, Delta is entitled under Jones and Vosilla to prevail on its claim that the tax deed is invalid.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we quash the First District’s decision and remand with instructions that the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Delta be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ„ concur.

      . If the titleholder's last known address is in the State of Florida, section 197.522(2), Florida Statutes (1999), requires the sheriff of the county in which the legal titleholder resides to attempt to serve notice of the tax sale pursuant to chapter 48, Florida Statutes, and if unable to complete service, the sheriff is to post a copy of the notice in a conspicuous place at the legal titleholder's last known address. If the last known address for the legal titleholder is not in the county in which the property is located, the sheriff is to additionally post notice in a conspicuous place at the property to be sold. In this case, a notice of the tax sale was posted in August 2000 at Delta's Phillips Highway address, the same incorrect address to which the certified mail was sent in September 2000. The sheriff did not post notice at the property to be sold.


author: LEWIS, J.

text:
    Candie Marie ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. SC11-3.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    March 15, 2012.
    Rehearing Denied May 18, 2012.

      James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Michael S. Becker, Assistant Public Defender, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, FL, for Petitioner.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, Pamela J. Koller and Wesley Harold Heidt, Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach, FL, for Respondent.
   LEWIS, J.

Candie Marie Anderson seeks review of the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Anderson v. State, 48 So.3d 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), on the basis that it expressly and directly conflicts with the decisions of Brown v. State, 764 So.2d 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), and Haygood v. State, 17 So.3d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), on a question of law. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

Facts

Candie Anderson entered a no contest plea to the charges of burglary of a dwelling, grand theft, and falsification of ownership to a pawnbroker. The trial court adjudicated her guilty of all three counts and sentenced her to five years imprisonment. However, the court suspended her sentence on the condition that she complete two years of community control followed by probation. The trial court also ordered her to pay monetary restitution to the victims of her crimes.

Before a meeting between Anderson and her probation officer, an arrest warrant had been issued for Anderson based on an alleged violation of her probation resulting from a failure to pay restitution. Due to Anderson’s failure to pay restitution, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) had also suspended her driver’s license. One of the victims of Anderson’s crimes informed the probation officer she had seen Anderson driving while her license was suspended. Based on this tip, the probation officer checked the driving record of Anderson and confirmed Anderson’s license suspension.

Upon Anderson’s arrival at the meeting, the probation officer arrested her for violation of her probation due to her failure to pay restitution. As the probation officer patted down Anderson, she discovered that Anderson had possession of automobile keys. Anderson admitted to the probation officer that the keys belonged to her and that she had driven a vehicle to the meeting. At the time Anderson drove the vehicle to the meeting, she allegedly did not have actual knowledge that her license was suspended, and she contended that she had not received a written notice of the suspension. She was charged with driving with a suspended license pursuant to section 322.34, Florida Statutes (2011). After her arrest, Anderson paid the required restitution, and the DHSMV reinstated her license. However, Anderson still faced a charge of violation of probation based upon the charge of driving with a suspended license.

During Anderson’s violation of probation hearing, defense counsel contended that the trial court should not find a violation of probation because the State had failed to satisfy the requirements of section 322.34(2), as it had not proven that Anderson had actual knowledge of her suspended license before she drove to the meeting with her probation officer. The driving record of Anderson indicated that the DHSMV mailed a written notice of the license suspension to the address on file for Anderson. The mailing was confirmed when the State entered the driving record of Anderson into evidence, which reflected that the DHSMV sent notice that was in compliance with section 322.251(1), Florida Statutes (2011).

Anderson testified that the address to which the DHSMV mailed the notice of suspension was her place of residence at the time of the license suspension and the DHSMV’s mailing. Defense counsel, however, contended that the fact that the DHSMV had mailed a written notice to Anderson’s address could not sustain a finding of actual knowledge of suspension and, therefore, did not support a finding of a violation of probation for driving with a suspended license. The trial court, however, found that the mailing was sufficient to place Anderson on notice of her suspended license. Therefore, the court held that she violated her probation, and it reinstated her original sentence that had been suspended.

On appeal, the Fifth District affirmed. See Anderson, 48 So.3d at 1018-19. In reaching its decision, the Fifth District construed sections 322.34 and 322.251(1) together. See id. at 1018. It explained that section 322.251(1) outlines the manner in which a notice of suspension is provided, and that those parameters apply to a charge of driving with a suspended license. See id. It also stated that section 322.251(1) permits notice either in person or by mail. See id. The district court then noted the rebuttable presumption of knowledge provided in section 322.34(2), stated that this presumption was unavailable in this case, and held that the unavailability of the presumption did not alter the outcome of this case. See id. at 1018-19. That rebuttable presumption was not available because this case involved a suspension for failure to pay a traffic fine or financial responsibility. See § 322.34(2). More specifically, the district court concluded that the State, even without the application of the rebuttable presumption, established the knowledge element when it presented evidence of the DHSMV’s mailing of written notice of Anderson’s license suspension to her correct address at the time of the mailing. See Anderson, 48 So.3d at 1019.

This review followed. At issue is whether the Fifth District misconstrued the knowledge requirement of section 322.34(2) in light of the decisions in Brown and Haygood. In those decisions, the district courts held that, in instances where section 322.34(2)’s rebuttable presumption does not apply, the State must prove that an individual has actually received notice of a license suspension to establish knowledge of that suspension. See Haygood, 17 So.3d at 896; Brown, 764 So.2d at 743-44.

Standard of Review and Principles of Statutory Construction

This case concerns a matter of statutory interpretation and construction, which is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo. See City of Parker v. State, 992 So.2d 171, 176 (Fla.2008). Legislative intent is the polestar that guides the interpretation and construction of a statute. See E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614, 629 (Fla.2009). A court primarily discerns legislative intent by looking to the plain text of the relevant statute. See id. A court gives a statute its plain meaning when the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a definite meaning. See Maddox v. State, 923 So.2d 442, 450 (Fla.2006). When the meaning of a statute is ambiguous, a court may turn to the rules of statutory interpretation and construction. See E.A.R., 4 So.3d at 629.

One rule of statutory construction is the doctrine of in pari materia. See id. This principle requires courts to construe statutes that relate to the same subject matter together to harmonize those statutes and give effect to legislative intent. See id. Similarly, a statute is to be read as a consistent whole, and a court should accord meaning and harmony to all of its parts, with effect given to every clause and related provision. See Larimore v. State, 2 So.3d 101, 106 (Fla.2008).

Applicable Statutes and Case Law

Under section 322.34(2), Florida Statutes (2011), any person who drives while his or her license is cancelled, suspended, or revoked, with knowledge of this fact, may be convicted of driving while a license is cancelled, suspended, or revoked, which is classified as either a misdemeanor or a felony of the third degree. The text of section 322.34(2)-(4) is as follows:

(2) Any person whose driver’s license or driving privilege has been canceled, suspended, or revoked as provided by law, except persons defined in s. 322.264, who, knowing of such cancellation, suspension, or revocation, drives any motor vehicle upon the highways of this state while such license or privilege is canceled, suspended, or revoked, upon:
(a) A first conviction is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(b) A second conviction is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(c) A third or subsequent conviction is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
The element of knowledge is satisfied if the person has been previously cited as provided in subsection (1); or the person admits to knowledge of the cancellation, suspension, or revocation; or the person received notice as provided in subsection (4). There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the knowledge requirement is satisfied if a judgment or order as provided in subsection (L) appears in the department’s records for any case except for one involving a suspension by the department for failure to pay a traffic fine or for a financial responsibility violation.
(3) In any proceeding for a violation of this section, a court may consider evidence, other than that specified in subsection (2), that the person knowingly violated this section.
(4) Any judgment or order rendered by a court or adjudicatory body or any uniform traffic citation that cancels, suspends, or revokes a person’s driver’s license must contain a provision notifying the person that his or her driver's license has been canceled, suspended, or revoked.

(Emphasis added). In section 322.251(1), Florida Statutes (2011), the Florida Legislature delineated what constitutes notice of a cancellation, suspension, or revocation:

All orders of cancellation, suspension, revocation, or disqualification issued under the provisions of this chapter, chapter 318, chapter 324, or ss. 627.732-627.734 shall be given either by [1] personal delivery thereof to the licensee whose license is being canceled, suspended, revoked, or disqualified or [2] by deposit in the United States mail in an envelope, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to the licensee at his or her last known mailing address furnished to the department. Such mailing by the department constitutes notification, and any failure by the person to receive the mailed order will not affect or stay the effective date or term of the cancellation, suspension, revocation, or disqualification of the licensee’s driving privilege.

(Emphasis added.)

In 1999, the Fifth District reviewed a conviction under section 322.34 for driving with a revoked license, and specifically addressed what constitutes notice under section 322.251. See Fields v. State, 731 So.2d 753, 753-54 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). However, Fields pertained to the 1997 version of section 322.34, which did not contain the complete knowledge definition provided in the present version of section 322.34(2) that is the subject of this appeal. See id. Rather, in 1997, section 322.34(2) only provided the following: “The element of knowledge is satisfied if the person has been previously cited as provided in subsection (1); or the person admits to knowledge of the cancellation, suspension, or revocation; or the person received notice as provided in subsection (4).” Ch. 97-300, § 40, at 5414, Laws of Fla. In 1998, the Legislature amended section 322.34(2) and constructed the current definition, which the courts considered in Brown and Haygood, and which is at issue in the present case. See ch. 98-223, § 12, at 2108-09, Laws of Fla. Compare § 322.34, Fla. Stat. (1997), with § 322.34(2), Fla. Stat. (1998 Supp.). Specifically, the 1998 Laws of Florida added the rebuttable presumption to the knowledge definition of section 322.34(2) and formulated the current statutory version. The language added in 1998 as underlined below demonstrates:

The element of knowledge is satisfied if the person has been previously cited as provided in subsection (1); or the person admits to knowledge of the cancellation, suspension, or revocation; or the person received notice as provided in subsection (4). There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the knowledge requirement is satisfied if a judgment or order as provided in subsection (4) appears in the department’s records for any case except for one involving a suspension by the department for failure to pay a traffic fine or for a financial responsibility violation.

Ch. 98-223, § 12, at 2109, Laws of Fla.; see also § 322.34, Fla. Stat. (2011).

In Fields, the defendant contended that the trial court erred when he was convicted of driving with a revoked license because the court should have instructed the jury that the State was required to establish that the defendant knew the DHSMV had revoked his license. See Fields, 731 So.2d at 753. The State established that it sent written notice of the revocation to the defendant by mail. See id. at 754. The Fifth District held that this satisfied the notice requirement of section 322.251 and, concomitantly, the knowledge requirement of section 322.34. See id. The district court concluded that the scienter element of section 322.34 did not require actual knowledge. See id.

After Fields, the Fourth District Court of Appeal decided Brown, which applied the current version of section 322.34(2) that is applicable in this appeal. See Brown, 764 So.2d at 742-43. There, the defendant was convicted of driving with a suspended license. See id. at 742. At trial, the State introduced a copy of the driving record of the defendant into evidence. See id. The driving record listed the same address as the defendant’s license, stated that the license was suspended for failure to pay a traffic fine, and provided that the required statutory notice of suspension had been sent by mail. See id.

The Fourth District examined the text of section 322.34(2) and its knowledge definition. See id. at 743. The district court stated that, because the case before it involved a suspension for failure to pay traffic fines, the plain text of section 322.34(2) removed the rebuttable presumption that the notice sent to the defendant’s address fulfilled the knowledge requirement of section 322.34(2). See id. It held that, absent the invocation of this presumption, the plain language of section 322.34(2) requires the State to prove the defendant actually received notice of the suspension. See id. at 744. The district court also noted that the only evidence presented by the State with regard to notice was the driving record of the defendant that reflected notice was mailed to the address of record, but that there was no evidence that Brown still resided at the same address when the notice was mailed. See id. The Fourth District concluded that the mailing of the notice itself, given the lack of application of the presumption of section 322.34(2), was insufficient to establish that the defendant actually received notice of his license suspension. See id. The court accordingly held that the State failed to establish that the defendant received notice and reversed his conviction for driving with a suspended license. See id.

After the Brown decision, the First District decided Haygood, which also applied the current version of section 322.34. See Haygood, 17 So.3d at 895-96. There, the defendant was convicted of driving with a suspended license. See id. at 895. The First District reversed the conviction because the State presented insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the defendant had knowledge of his license suspension. See id. As in Brown, the State introduced a copy of the driving record of the defendant into evidence, which reflected that the defendant’s driver’s license was suspended for failure to pay a traffic fine and child support. See id. Unlike the driving record in Brown, however, the driving record for the defendant in Haygood failed to list the address of the defendant. See id. Nonetheless, it did provide that, in compliance with section 322.251, notice of the suspension had been provided to the defendant. See id.

In rendering its decision, the First District agreed with and adopted the reasoning in Brown. See id. at 896. The district court held that the reasoning in Brown was in accord with the plain text of section 322.34. See id. The district court stated that according to the driving record of the defendant, the license suspension was due to failure to fulfill a financial responsibility. See id. It held that this negated the application of the rebuttable presumption in section 322.34(2) with regard to knowledge created by an entry in the DHSMV record, and thus required that the State present evidence that the defendant actually received notice of his license suspension. See id. The district court concluded that the State failed to satisfy this requirement because the mere fact that the driving record of the defendant listed his license suspension did not establish that the defendant actually received notice of that suspension. See id. It reversed the defendant’s conviction for driving while his license was suspended. See id.

Decision Below

In the decision below, the Fifth District correctly held that the State sufficiently established the knowledge requirement of the current version of section 322.34(2) because (1) the mailing of the written notice of suspension satisfied the notice requirement of section 322.251(1), and (2) the State proved that this was the address of Anderson at the time of the mailing. This result is in accord with the plain language of sections 322.34 and 322.251(1), as construed together and taken as a whole.

As provided by the Legislature, the knowledge requirement of section 322.34(2) is fulfilled when an individual “received notice” of that suspension as contemplated in section 322.34(4). (Emphasis added.) Subsection (4) of 322.34 mandates that any judgment or order rendered by a court or adjudicatory body or uniform traffic citation that results in the cancellation, suspension, or revocation of a license must contain a provision notifying the person of that action. Section 322.251(1), which concerns the same subject matter as section 322.34 — i.e., driving while a license is can-celled, suspended, or revoked — explicitly outlines two mechanisms for delivery of a written notice of a license suspension, revocation, or cancellation under section 322.34. See § 322.251(1). The first mechanism is to provide the notice “by personal delivery.” Id. The second mechanism is to “deposit [the notice] in the United States mail in an envelope, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to the licensee at his or her last known mailing address furnished to the [DHSMV].” Id. (emphasis added).

Here, the State sufficiently proved knowledge by verifying that the DHSMV sent notice of Anderson’s license suspension by mail and that Anderson received it. More specifically, it established that it sent notice of the license suspension in accordance with section 322.251(1), i.e., it entered into evidence the driving record of Anderson, which illustrated that the DHSMV mailed written notice of Anderson’s license suspension to her last known address. The State then established that Anderson received that notice, as evidenced by the testimony of Anderson that she resided at the address to which the DHSMV sent the notice at the time of the mailing. Section 322.34(3) permits the consideration of this type of testimony as evidence of receipt .of notification and knowledge of a license suspension. See § 322.34(3) (permitting a court to consider evidence of knowledge, “other than that specified in subsection (2),” when it determines whether an individual knew of a license suspension).

Anderson contends that, in cases such as hers — i.e., when an individual’s license is suspended due to failure to fulfill a financial responsibility — the rebuttable presumption in section 322.34(2) does not apply. She asserts that the State, therefore, must prove that she actually received the notice and had actual knowledge of her suspension.

The Legislature, however, did not contemplate such an exacting burden of proving actual knowledge for the State, even in instances when the rebuttable presumption of knowledge in section 322.34(2) does not apply. Rather, the plain language of section 322.34(2) permits the State, in instances of a suspension for a reason other than the failure to fulfill a traffic fine or some other financial responsibility, to invoke a rebuttable presumption of knowledge. To do so, the State must only establish that a judgment or order of suspension as provided in section 322.34(4) has been entered on an individual’s driving record. When, as in this case, the suspension is for failure to fulfill a traffic fine or financial responsibility, the plain language of section 322.34(2) negates the applicability of that presumption. The language of that section, however, does not alter the requirement that the State, even without the invocation of the rebuttable presumption, must prove only that the individual received notice. Here, the State fulfilled this burden by establishing that the DHSMV mailed Anderson written notice of her suspension to the address where she resided at the time of the mailing.

Conclusion

Accordingly, we hold that the Fifth District properly affirmed Anderson’s license suspension and the revocation of her probation. We, therefore, affirm the decision below. We disapprove Brown and Hay-good to the extent that those decisions conflict with the opinion of this Court.

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.