GREGORY MILLS, PETITIONER,
v.
HARRY K. SINGLETARY, ETC., RESPONDENT
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.
Gregory Mills, a death row inmate, petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, raising claims about inadequate harmless error analysis and the constitutionality of the felony-murder aggravator. The court denied the petition on procedural grounds, holding that both claims were procedurally barred and that recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions did not constitute changes in law warranting retroactive application.
Both of Mills' claims are procedurally barred and cannot be reconsidered in a second habeas corpus petition. The recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions cited by Mills (Sochor, Stringer, and Parker) do not constitute changes in law meeting the Witt requirements for retroactive application in postconviction proceedings.
[1] Habeas corpus petitions cannot be used to relitigate issues that were raised or should have been raised on direct appeal, or that were waived at trial or in prior postcon…
[2] New legal decisions are not retroactively applied in postconviction proceedings unless they meet specific requirements for significant changes in the law.
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“Habeas corpus cannot "be used 'for obtaining additional appeals of issues which were raised, or should have been raised, on direct appeal or which were waived at trial or which could have, should have, or have been raised in' prior postconviction filings."”
Establishes the procedural bar preventing habeas corpus petitions from relitigating issues already addressed or that should have been raised previously
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGregory Mills was convicted and sentenced to death. He had previously appealed his conviction directly and filed prior postconviction motions. In his …
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 Procedural Bar cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Gregory Mills, a prisoner on death row, petitions this Court for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1), (9), Florida Constitution. Because the issues raised are procedurally barred, we deny the petition. Mills has been before this Court several times: Mills v. State, 476 So. 2d 172 (Fla.1985) (direct appeal), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1031, 106 S.Ct. 1241, 89 L.Ed.2d 349 (1986); Mills v. Dugger, 559 So. 2d 578 (Fla.1990) (habeas, postconviction); and Mills v. State, 603 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1992) (postconviction).
He raises two issues in this petition: 1) in affirming the death sentence this Court performed an inadequate harmless error analysis; and 2) the felony-murder aggravator is an unconstitutional automatic aggravating circumstance in felony murders. This, however, is Mills’ second petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Habeas corpus cannot “be used ‘for obtaining additional appeals of issues which were raised, or should have been raised, on direct appeal or which were waived at trial or which could have, should have, or have been raised in’ prior postconviction filings.” Mills v. Dugger, 574 So. 2d 63, 65 (Fla.1990), quoting White v. Dugger, 511 So. 2d 554, 555 (Fla.1987).
In an attempt to overcome this procedural bar Mills argues that Sochor v. Florida, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 2114, 119 L.Ed.2d 326 (1992), Stringer v. Black, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1130, 117 L.Ed.2d 367 (1992), and Parker v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308, 111 S.Ct. 731, 112 L.Ed.2d 812 (1991), are major changes in the law that should be applied retroactively under Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1067, 101 S.Ct. 796, 66 L.Ed.2d 612 (1980), to give relief in postconviction proceedings.
We disagree.
We have previously held that Stringer and Parker do not meet the Witt requirements. Kennedy v. Singletary, 599 So. 2d 991 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 3040, 120 L.Ed.2d 909 (1992); Routly v. State, 590 So. 2d 397 (Fla.1991). The United States Supreme Court remanded Sochor for our reconsideration because we had not made a plain statement that we found the error in Sochor’s sentencing to be harmless. Sochor is not a change in the law that will save Mills’ first claim from a procedural bar, and that claim is barred from consideration.
Moreover, in affirming Mills’ death sentence we stated: “Because there were no mitigating circumstances, we find that the court’s erroneous finding of two statutory aggravating circumstances was harmless and did not impair the sentencing process.” 476 So. 2d at 179. We, therefore, applied, and applied correctly, a harmless error analysis in Mills’ direct appeal. Cf. Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939, 958, 103 S.Ct. 3418, 3429, 77 L.Ed.2d 1134 (1983) (“the Florida Supreme Court does not apply its harmless-error analysis in an automatic or mechanical fashion, but rather upholds death sentences on the basis of this analysis only when it actually finds that the error is harmless”); see White v. Dugger, 565 So. 2d 700 (Fla.1990).
Mills’ second claim is also procedurally barred. We considered and rejected the substance of this claim on direct appeal. 476 So. 2d at 178. Thus, we found the claim procedurally barred in Mills’ first habeas corpus petition. 559 So. 2d at 579. Again, Stringer is not a change in the law that warrants retroactive application, and Mills’ second claim is procedurally barred.
We therefore deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, grimes, kogan and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mills v. Moore, 786 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2001)…not the test for ineffectiveness.” Stano v. State, 520 So. 2d 278, 281 n. 5 (Fla.1988). Mills v. State, 603 So. 2d 482, 485 (Fla.1992). Mills then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied on procedural grounds. Mills v. Singletary, 606 So. 2d 622 (Fla.1992). He then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. The Eleventh Circuit Comí of Appeals presented a detailed procedural history of this case in Mills v. Singletary, 161 F. 3d 1273, 1278-80 (11th Cir.1998). In short, w…1 / 2
-
Mills v. State, 786 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 2001)…der (in this case, murder committed during the course of a burglary), the aggravating factor that the murder was committed in the course of another dangerous felony becomes automatic. We [*551] have repeatedly denied this claim. Mills v. Singletary, 606 So. 2d 622 (Fla.1992) (holding Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222, 112 S.Ct. 1130, 117 L.Ed.2d 367 (1992), was not a change in the law that warranted retroactive application and thus Mills’ claim that the felony murder aggravator was an unconstitutional automatic…
-
Mack v. State, 684 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…Petition DENIED. PETERSON, C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur. . Mills v. Dugger, 574 So. 2d 63, 65 (Fla.1990), citing White v. Dugger, 511 So. 2d 554, 555 (Fla. [*297] 1987). See Clark v. Dugger, 559 So. 2d 192, 193 (Fla. 1990); Mills v. Singletary, 606 So. 2d 622, 623 (Fla. 1992); Steinhorst v. Singletary, 638 So. 2d 33, 34 (Fla. 1994).…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (17 total)
- Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1980)
- Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 (U.S. 1983)
- Sochor v. Florida, 504 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1992)
- Parker v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1991)
- Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222 (U.S. 1992)
- Mills v. State, 476 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1985)
- Adams v. Peat, 449 U.S. 1067 (U.S. 1980)
- Jarrett v. Jarrett, 449 U.S. 1067 (U.S. 1980)
- Jones v. United States, 475 U.S. 1031 (U.S. 1986)
- Speckin v. United States, 475 U.S. 1031 (U.S. 1986)