STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
GREGORY MILLS, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a trial court's grant of postconviction relief to Gregory Mills, ordering a new sentencing hearing based on newly discovered evidence suggesting his codefendant, not Mills, was the triggerman in the underlying murder. The Court rejected the State's appeal while also denying Mills' cross-appeal for a new guilt phase trial.
The Court affirmed the trial court's grant of a new sentencing hearing based on newly discovered evidence meeting the Jones v. State test, as the evidence was unknown at trial, could not have been discovered with due diligence, would have been admissible for impeachment, and would probably have produced a different result at sentencing. The issue of ex parte communications was rendered moot by the grant of a new sentencing hearing. Mills was not entitled to a new guilt phase trial as the evidence did not call into question his conviction for first-degree murder.
[1] Newly discovered evidence warrants a new sentencing hearing if it was unknown at the time of trial, could not have been discovered with due diligence, would have been adm…
[2] Newly discovered evidence that a codefendant, rather than the defendant, was the triggerman may warrant a new sentencing hearing.
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“The evidence presented by Anderson was unknown at the time of trial and neither Mills nor his counsel could have discovered it with due diligence; the evidence would have been admissible at trial, if only for impeachment; and the newly discovered evidence, when considered in conjunction with the evidence at Mills' trial and 3.850 proceedings, would have probably produced a different result at sentencing.”
Articulates the three-part Jones test for newly discovered evidence that the trial court correctly applied
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 of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. In his third Rule 3.850 motion, Mills presented testimony from John Henry A…
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 Ex Parte Communication cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida appeals the trial court’s order on Gregory Mills’ third motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 which granted Mills a new sentencing hearing. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.1 For the reasons which follow, we affirm the ruling of the trial court.
In his 3.850 motion, Mills raised two issues: (1) that newly discovered evidence established the codefendant, and not Mills, was the triggerman in the underlying murder, thus warranting a new trial or a life sentence; and (2) that newly discovered information established that impermissible ex parte communications occurred between the State and the sentencing judge during Mills’ initial postconviction proceedings.
The trial court granted an evidentiary hearing and considered evidence from both Mills and the State. Mills presented the testimony of John Henry Anderson who indicated he knew both Mills and his code-fendant, Vincent Ashley. Anderson further indicated that during 1980 he and Ashley were in jail at the same time, and Ashley made a statement to him that he, Ashley, was the person who had gone into the house and shot the victim. The State presented the testimony of Judge William Woodson who presided over Mills’ initial 3.850 proceedings. Judge Woodson stated he in fact contacted the State Attorney’s office and asked the prosecutor to prepare an order denying Mills’ request for 3.850 relief.
As to Mills’ first claim, the trial court found that the evidence Mills presented met the test for newly discovered evidence as enunciated by this Court in Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 519 (Fla. 1998). We agree. The evidence presented by Anderson was unknown at the time of trial and neither Mills nor his counsel could have discovered it with due diligence; the evidence would have been admissible at trial, if only for impeachment; and the newly discovered evidence, when considered in conjunction with the evidence at Mills’ trial and 3.850 proceedings, would have probably produced a different result at sentencing. The State has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial judge in his determination of this issue. See Mills v. State, 786 So. 2d 547 (Fla.2001). Therefore, we affirm that portion of the trial court’s order granting Mills a new sentencing hearing.
As to Mills’ second claim, the trial court stayed Mills’ execution and ordered additional hearings pursuant to Huff v. State, 622 So. 2d 982 (Fla.1993). Because Mills will receive a new sentencing hearing, the issue involving preparation of the 3.850 order is rendered moot.
Mills filed a cross-appeal arguing the trial judge erred in only vacating his sentence of death and that a new guilt phase trial should be ordered. We deny Mills relief on his cross-appeal issue. The evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing does not call into question Mills’ conviction for first-degree murder, thus he is not entitled to a new trial.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s grant of 3.850 relief to the extent that a new sentencing hearing is required.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. . For a thorough recitation of the underlying facts, see Mills v. Moore, 786 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2001), and Mills v. State, 786 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 2001).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cherry v. State, 959 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 2007)…167, 1170 (Fla.2000). We also affirmed a postconviction order holding a 1980 confession by a codefendant to his cellmate and not presented until a 2001 postconviction motion was not procedurally barred under the first prong of Jones. State v. Mills, 788 So. 2d 249, 250 (Fla. 2001). Also, in Jones, though certain evidence was procedurally barred, jailhouse confessions made in 1985 by the alleged actual killer “clearly qualified] as newly discovered evidence” in the defendant’s 1991 second postconviction claim.…
-
Roberts v. State, 840 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 2002)…otion was timely and legally sufficient, Roberts is not entitled to relief on this claim because he has been granted a new sentencing proceeding based on his third postconviction motion. The State relies upon this Court’s decision in State v. Mills, 788 So. 2d 249, 250-51 (Fla.2001), in which we ruled that a claim of impermissible ex parte communications between the State and the sentencing judge regarding preparation of an order during an initial postconviction proceeding was rendered moot by the postconvict…
-
Melton v. State, 949 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 2006)…e Saylor murder, he is not entitled to relief on his claim that an invalid prior conviction was improperly introduced into evidence during his penalty phase. See Melton v. State, 909 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). . Melton cites to State v. Mills, 788 So. 2d 249 (Fla.2001), for the proposition that a codefen-dant’s prior inconsistent statements can be admissible for impeachment purposes. In that case, this Court upheld a trial court’s decision to grant a new sentencing in a capital case on the basis of the…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Huff v. State, 622 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1993)
- Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1998)
- Mills v. Moore, 786 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2001)
- Mills v. State, 786 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 2001)