ROY HOWARD MIDDLETON, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Roy Howard Middleton, Jr. appealed the denial of his postconviction relief motion, claiming his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of his option to move for a mistrial when a juror was discharged after deliberations began. The court found counsel was deficient but remanded for determination of prejudice under the Strickland standard.
Trial counsel was deficient in failing to advise the defendant of the mistrial option. The case is remanded to the trial court to determine whether the defendant demonstrated the requisite prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, as the trial court did not make an express credibility determination regarding the defendant's testimony about what he would have chosen.
[1] Trial counsel is deficient for failing to advise a defendant of the option to move for a mistrial when a juror is discharged after deliberations have begun.
[2] A defendant must demonstrate prejudice resulting from counsel's deficiency in failing to advise of the option to move for a mistrial.
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“[I]t appears that Florida has no statutory or procedural authorization for substitution of an empan-elled juror after discharge of the alternates and commencement of deliberations. In the event of timely objection, it should not be done”
Establishes that juror substitution after deliberations is improper under Florida law, supporting that counsel should have advised the defendant of the mistrial option
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring Middleton's trial, a juror was discharged after deliberations had commenced. Trial counsel did not advise Middleton that he had the option to m…
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 Strickland V. Washington Prejudice Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Roy Howard Middleton, Jr., seeks review of the order denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 wherein he raised six claims, only three of which are at issue on appeal and only one of which merits discussion. In his fifth claim for relief, appellant alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that he had the option of moving for a mistrial when a juror was discharged after deliberations had begun. Contrary to the trial court’s determination, we conclude that trial counsel was deficient in failing to advise appellant of this option. See Sotola v. State, 436 So. 2d 1001, 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (“[I]t appears that Florida has no statutory or procedural authorization for substitution of an empan-elled juror after discharge of the alternates and commencement of deliberations. In the event of timely objection, it should not be done”) (emphasis added).* With respect to whether appellant was prejudiced by trial counsel’s deficiency, although appellant testified during the evidentiary hearing that he would have chosen the option of moving for a mistrial rather than proceeding with eleven jurors had counsel informed him of such, the trial court made no express credibility determination with respect to this testimony. If appellant had moved for a mistrial, the trial court would have had to grant the motion under the case law. As such, we remand the case to the trial court to determine whether appellant has demonstrated the requisite prejudice pursuant to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings.
DAVIS, LEWIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur. *
At the time of appellant's trial, Sotola was one of two cases that addressed jury substitution with an alternate after deliberations had begun. The supreme court's opinion in Williams v. State, 792 So. 2d 1207, 1210 (Fla.2001), wherein the court held that “whenever ... a juror becomes unable to proceed during deliberations, a new trial of the matter which was the subject of those deliberations is required,” had not yet been issued.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Middleton v. State, 41 So. 3d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…In case number 06-3378, we affirmed without discussion the trial court’s denial of five post-conviction claims, but held that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise appellant of his option to move for a mistrial. See Middleton v. State, 984 So. 2d 522, 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (Middleton I). Because the post-conviction court failed to make a credibility determination on Middleton’s hearing testimony that he would have chosen to move for a mistrial had counsel advised him of the option, the court r…
-
Middleton v. State, 131 So. 3d 815 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…right to move for a mistrial and remanded with directions that the trial court determine whether appellant demonstrated the requisite prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Middleton v. State, 984 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). On remand, the trial court found appellant would have requested a mistrial if he had known that was an available option, but concluded appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome of a new trial wou…
-
Miller v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…declared on the record that a curative instruction was insufficient and counsel expressed on the record that he thought it would result in a dismissal of the charges and an attachment of jeopardy if a mistrial was declared. Cf. Middleton v. State, 984 So. 2d 522, 522–23 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) ("If appellant had moved for a mistrial, the trial court would have had to grant the motion under the case law. As such, we remand the case to the trial court to determine whether appellant has demonstrated the requisite…
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Williams v. State, 792 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 2001)
- Sotola v. State, 436 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)