Darrius William Miller v. State of Florida

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 9, 2026
Docket6D2024-1355
StatusPublished

This text of Darrius William Miller v. State of Florida (Darrius William Miller v. State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Darrius William Miller v. State of Florida, (Fla. Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 6D2024-1355 Lower Tribunal No. 2016-CF-009530-A-O _____________________________

DARRIUS WILLIAM MILLER,

Appellant, v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Leticia Marques, Judge.

January 9, 2026

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D) (establishing that the summary

denial of all claims raised in a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of

Criminal Procedure 3.850, without an evidentiary hearing, is appropriate if “the record

shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief”); State v. Upton, 658 So. 2d

86, 87 (Fla. 1995) (“An effective waiver of a constitutional right must be knowing,

voluntary, and intelligent” (citing Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970))); Ross v.

State, 392 So. 2d 23, 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (Anstead, J., concurring specially) (“[E]ven if a prima facie showing of failure to render reasonably effective assistance of counsel has

been made, such ineffective assistance was known to defendant at time of trial, knowingly

and voluntarily concurred in by him, and cannot support this collateral attack. . . . Even

though his complaint of ineffective assistance of counsel is of constitutional dimension, he

has knowingly waived the error, consenting thereto.” (citations omitted)); see generally

Chames v. DeMayo, 972 So. 2d 850, 860 (Fla. 2007) (observing that “a trend has developed

toward permitting the [knowing, voluntary, and intelligent] waiver of constitutional rights,

especially rights given to criminal defendants” (collecting cases)).

NARDELLA, WOZNIAK and PRATT, JJ., concur.

Susanne Sichta and Rick Sichta, of The Sichta Firm, LCC, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Brady v. United States
397 U.S. 742 (Supreme Court, 1970)
State v. Upton
658 So. 2d 86 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
Chames v. DeMayo
972 So. 2d 850 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2007)
Ross v. State
392 So. 2d 23 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Darrius William Miller v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darrius-william-miller-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2026.