Miller v. State

867 So. 2d 566, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2587, 2004 WL 384700
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Miller v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 785 So. 2d 662
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 3, 2004·No. No. 3D02-2487·Published

Opinion

FLETCHER, Judge.

Jerry Lacel Miller appeals from the denial of his petition for relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm in part, and reverse in part and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

Miller’s motion for post-conviction relief contained allegations that his attorney failed to interview or depose the state’s primary witness1, failed to inspect certain photographic and taped discovery made available to defense by the state, and was not familiar with the record so as to be able to advise the defendant regarding the [567]*567plea offer or meaningfully discuss defense strategies and the posture of the case, even after commencement of trial. Miller’s allegations sufficiently described specific conduct on part of trial counsel which, if it indeed occurred, would constitute substantial and serious deficiencies measurably below that of competent counsel. As the record does not conclusively refute Miller’s claims he is entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing thereon.

Regarding the specific claims2 of failing to depose witnesses, review discovery, and follow up on certain motions to suppress, we reverse the trial court’s order of denial and remand to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the trial court’s denial of relief on the remaining claims.3

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

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

Miller v. State, 867 So. 2d 566, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2587, 2004 WL 384700 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

867 So. 2d 566 (Miller v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.