JOHN MILLS, JR., 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.
John Mills, a death row inmate, filed his fourth habeas corpus petition challenging the validity of jury instructions on aggravating factors in his capital sentencing. The Florida Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that the issues were procedurally barred because they could have been or were raised in prior proceedings.
The petitioner's issues are procedurally barred because they could have been raised, should have been raised, or were raised in prior proceedings. The Espinosa and Sochor claims are barred because Mills did not object to the form of the instructions at trial, and the Sochor claim is inapplicable because the court affirmed all aggravators found by the trial court.
[1] A prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied if the issues raised are procedurally barred.
[2] Claims regarding invalid jury instructions on aggravating factors are procedurally barred if they could have been, should have been, or were raised previously.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“This is Mills' fourth habeas petition, and we have ruled against him in all prior proceedings”
Establishes the procedural history and shows Mills' repeated unsuccessful attempts to challenge his conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMills was convicted and sentenced to death. At trial, Mills objected that the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator did not apply to the facts of hi…
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 Cold, Calculated, and Premeditated Aggravating Circumstance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
John Mills, a prisoner on death row, petitions the Court for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const. We deny the petition because the issues raised in it are procedurally barred.
This is Mills’ fourth habeas petition, and we have ruled against him in all prior proceedings: Mills v. State, 462 So. 2d 1075 (Fla.) (direct appeal), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 911, 105 S.Ct. 3538, 87 L.Ed.2d 661 (1985); Mills v. State, 507 So. 2d 602 (Fla.1987) (postconviction motion and first habeas petition); Mills v. Dugger, 523 So. 2d 578 (Fla.1988) (second habeas petition); Mills v. Dugger, 574 So. 2d 63 (Fla.1990) (third habe-as petition). Mills raises two issues in the instant petition: 1) the instructions on the aggravators of heinous, atrocious, or cruel and cold, calculated, and premeditated were invalid and, therefore, resentencing is required by Espinosa v. Florida, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2926, 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992), and Sochor v. Florida, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2114, 119 L.Ed.2d 326 (1992); and 2) finding committed during a felony as an aggravator was an improper automatic aggravator. These issues are procedurally barred because they could have been, should have been, or were raised previously. Mills, 574 So. 2d at 65.
At trial Mills objected that the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator did not apply to the facts of his case. The trial judge disagreed and instructed the jury as to that factor and, of his own volition, expanded the instruction to define the terms. Mills did not object to the form of the instruction and such an objection is necessary to preserve an Espinosa claim. Likewise, Mills did not object at trial that the wording of the instruction of the cold, calculated aggravator was unconstitutionally insufficient, and, thus, his current claim is procedurally barred. Hodges v. State, 595 So. 2d 929 (Fla.1992). Mills attacked these instructions in his third habeas petition, but we found the issue procedurally barred. Id. 574 So. 2d at 64-65.
Relief is also not warranted because of Sochor. In Sochor the Court remanded for our consideration because it did not see where, on the face of our opinion on direct appeal, we did a harmless error analysis in holding that the trial court erred in finding an aggravator. We affirmed all of the aggravators found by Mills’ trial court, and, therefore, Sochor is not applicable to the facts of Mills’ case.
Because the second issue could have been raised before now, it, too, is procedurally barred.
Therefore, finding that the issues raised are procedurally barred, we 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
-
Crosley Alexander Green v. State, 641 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1994)…his issue was not preserved for appeal. Green did not object at trial to the form of the instruction, which is necessary to preserve a claim under Espinosa v. Florida, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2926, 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992). See, e.g., Mills v. Singletary, 622 So. 2d 943, 944 (Fla.1993). Even if the issue had been preserved, the instruction given in this case was not the instruction disapproved in Espinosa. . After discussing all aggravating and mitigating factors, the sentencing order includes this summary: After…
-
Mills v. State, 684 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1996)…during the guilt phase of the trial and thereafter rejected the claim as meritless. Over the course of the next several years, Mills filed three separate petitions for writ of habeas corpus in this Court, which were denied. See Mills v. Singletary, 622 So. 2d 943 (Fla.1993); Mills v. Dugger, 574 So. 2d 63 (Fla.1990); Mills v. Dugger, 523 So. 2d 578 (Fla.1988). Recently, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the federal district court’s denial of Mills’ federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. Mil…
-
Roberts v. Singletary, 626 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 1993)…ve repeatedly held that claims are proeedurally barred where there was a failure at trial to object to the instruction on the grounds of vagueness or unconstitutionality. See, e.g., Sims v. Singletary, 622 So. 2d 980 (Fla.1993); Mills v. Singletary, 622 So. 2d 943 (Fla.1993); Atkins v. Singletary, 622 So. 2d 951 (Fla.1993); Turner v. Dugger, 614 So. 2d 1075, 1081 (Fla.1992); Melendez v. State, 612 So. 2d 1366, 1369 (Fla.1992), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Aug. 9, 1993) (No. 93-5528); Johnson v. Singletary,…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079 (U.S. 1992)
- Sochor v. Florida, 504 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1992)
- Mills v. State, 462 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 1985)
- Mills v. Dugger, 574 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1990)
- Hodges v. State, 595 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1992)
- Green Bay Packaging, Inc. v. Adams Extract Co., 473 U.S. 911 (U.S. 1985)
- Holding v. Sovran Bank & Tr. of the Est. of Muse, 473 U.S. 911 (U.S. 1985)
- Mills v. State, 507 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1987)