Miller v. State

114 So. 3d 979, 2012 WL 1753663, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7984
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Miller v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10972
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 18, 2012·No. No. 5D12-217·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Bruce James Miller appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Miller’s motion raised a number of interrelated claims (numbered mostly as sub-claims), and we affirm the summary denial order as to all issues except one. Focusing on the one issue warranting reversal, Miller alleged that his trial counsel misinformed him that the State could prove the crime of dealing in stolen property, when the State’s evidence was insufficient to support a eonvic[980]*980tion on that charge. He further alleged that he would not have pled guilty to that charge except for his counsel’s mistaken advice. Because the portions of the record attached to the trial court’s denial order do not conclusively refute this claim, we reverse the portion of the order denying this claim and remand with directions that the trial court hold an evidentiary hearing on this issue only. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d) (2011). In all other respects, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

ORFINGER, C.J., LAWSON and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

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

Miller v. State, 114 So. 3d 979, 2012 WL 1753663, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7984 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

114 So. 3d 979 (Miller v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.