STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
MARK D. MILLS, 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.
The court held that petitioner's response lacked sufficient information for a harmless error analysis, and the case must be remanded for such an analysis.
The court reviewed a case where proceedings were stayed pending a decision in a related case, Galindez. The petitioner's response to a show cause orde…
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 Certified Conflict cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Mills v. State, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D2476, — So. 2d -, 2006 WL 2805144 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct.3, 2006), in which the First District Court of Appeal certified conflict with Galindez v. State, 910 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), approved, 955 So. 2d 517 (Fla.2007). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We stayed proceedings in this case pending disposition of Galindez, which we ultimately decided on harmless error grounds based on a thorough review of the record. See Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517 (Fla.2007). We thereafter issued an order directing petitioner to show cause why our Galindez decision should not control the outcome of the present case. However, petitioner’s response does not contain enough information or record attachments for us to perform a Galindez harmless error analysis. Moreover, we cannot unilaterally perform such an analysis, as the record is not before this Court.
We accordingly grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed and this matter is remanded to the First District Court for application of a harmless error analysis based on our decision in Galindez and a thorough review of the record.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mills v. State, 989 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…006 WL 2805144 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 3, 2006). Thereupon, the State sought review before the supreme court, which quashed this Court’s opinion and remanded to this Court for application of a “harmless error” analysis under Galindez. See State v. Mills, 976 So. 2d 578 (Fla.2008). We now hold that the error was not harmless because a reasonable jury might have chosen to disbelieve the doctor’s testimony, and to believe Appellant’s statement to the police and the testimony of Laird. For this reason, under Galindez…
Authorities Cited
- Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2007)
- Galindez v. State, 910 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)