Darrius William Miller v. State of Florida
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.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
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.