KEVIN J. MILLER, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the appellant's motion for postconviction relief on the first ground, as the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not conclusively refuted by the record.
[1] A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on misadvice regarding the viability of defenses may establish prejudice if the misadvice led to a guilty ple…
[2] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a showing of deficient performance and resulting prejudice.
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 intelligenceAppellant pleaded guilty to armed robbery and attempted felony murder. He later filed a motion for postconviction relief alleging his counsel misadvis…
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 Attempted Felony Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Kevin J. Miller appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Mr. Miller raises two issues in his motion. We affirm the summary denial of ground two without further discussion. However, for the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand the denial of ground one.
Mr. Miller pleaded guilty to armed robbery and attempted felony murder. On direct appeal, the court reversed Mr. Miller’s conviction for armed robbery because the weapon used to support the charge of armed robbery was an automobile. See Miller v. State, 988 So.2d 138, 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).
In ground one of his post-conviction motion, Mr. Miller alleges that but for his counsel’s misadvice that there were no viable defenses to the charge of armed robbery, he would not have pleaded guilty but would have proceeded to trial. This claim remains unrefuted by the record. According to Mr. Miller, his understanding, from discussions with his counsel, was that he should plead guilty because, although “a jury would likely return a favorable verdict on the alleged felony murder, an unfavorable verdict would most likely be returned on the alleged armed robbery.” Because both charges supported a sentence of twenty-five years’ imprisonment, Mr. Mil*1176ler would not have received a lower sentence by succeeding in an acquittal on the felony murder charge.
However, simple robbery can only support a sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment. Therefore, Mr. Miller had a chance of reducing his overall sentence to fifteen years had he received an acquittal on the felony murder charge. For this reason, Mr. Miller has sufficiently alleged prejudice pursuant to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to either attach such portions of the record which conclusively refute this claim, or to hold an evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.
BENTON, C.J., WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Miller v. State, 988 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)