EARNEST LEE MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Miller appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion to vacate his death sentence for first-degree murder. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial, rejecting claims of prosecutorial misconduct, procedural defects, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
The trial court did not err in denying all three aspects of Miller's Rule 3.850 motion. The record conclusively showed no entitlement to relief on the prosecutorial misconduct claim, issues regarding new trial motions had been decided on direct appeal and were barred on collateral attack, and trial counsel provided reasonably effective assistance.
[1] A trial court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a conviction and sentence when the record conclusively shows tha…
[2] Issues that were considered on direct appeal cannot be raised in a subsequent collateral attack on a conviction or sentence.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the record conclusively shows that Miller is entitled to no relief, and we find no error in the trial court's refusal to grant an evidentiary hearing”
Establishes the standard for review of prosecutorial misconduct claims on collateral attack—the record must be examined to determine if an evidentiary hearing is necessary.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury convicted Miller of first-degree murder and the trial judge sentenced him to death. The Florida Supreme Court had previously affirmed both the …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Vacate, Set Aside Or Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Miller appeals the denial of his motion,* filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, to vacate, set aside, or correct conviction and sentence. We have jurisdiction and affirm the denial and deny his application for stay of execution.
A jury convicted Miller of first-degree murder, and the trial judge sentenced him to death. We affirmed both the conviction and sentence. Miller v. State, 415 So. 2d 1262 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 802, 74 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1983). The governor signed Miller’s death warrant on June 23, 1983. Miller then filed the motion which is the subject of this appeal.
On appeal Miller urges that the trial court erred by failing to (1) hold an evidentiary hearing regarding prosecutorial misconduct; (2) rule on the motion to amend the motion to vacate; and (3) find trial counsel ineffective. We find no error in the trial court proceedings.
Relying on Demps v. State, 416 So. 2d 808 (Fla.1982), Miller argues that the state tampered with several witnesses. Unlike Demps, however, the record conclusively shows that Miller is entitled to no relief, and we find no error in the trial court’s refusal to grant an evidentiary hearing. The record affirmatively shows a competent basis for the trial court’s ruling.
The trial court properly ruled that the issues dealing with the motion for new trial had been considered on direct appeal and could not be brought up on collateral attack. We find no error, therefore, in the trial court’s refusal to allow Miller to amend his motion to include more material relative to that claim.
Regarding his trial counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness, Miller claims that his attorney should have secured testimony from independent forensic witnesses and should have investigated and cross-examined witnesses more. We agree with the trial court that Miller’s counsel, viewed in light of Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1981), provided reasonably effective assistance to his client. This Court considered counsel’s performance in handling the witnesses on direct appeal, and our current review of the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that counsel performed in an exemplary fashion. The forensic expert’s testimony at the instant hearing merely points up the fact that experts can form divergent opinions. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Miller’s motions to vacate and for stay of execution. No motion for rehearing will be allowed.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, McDonald, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. *
The trial court’s order denying relief is set out as an appendix to Jent v. State, 435 So. 2d 8(39 (Fla. 1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Earnest Lee Miller v. Louie L. Wainwright, 798 F.2d 426 (11th Cir. 1986)…iary hearings on these issues. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of relief. Jent v. State, 435 So. 2d 809, 810-13 (Fla.1983) (attaching the trial court’s order denying relief as an appendix to the opinion); Miller v. State, 435 So. 2d 813, 814 (Fla.1983). The federal district court, in reviewing the ineffective assistance of counsel claims in separate opinions for Jent and Miller, accorded the state court’s decision a presumption of correctness. In both cases the court stated: Where…
Authorities Cited
- Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1981)
- Bennie E. Demps v. State, 416 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1982)
- Miller v. State, 415 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1982)