MILLER V. STATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2004 ** JERRY LACEL MILLER, ** Appellant, ** vs. CASE NO. 3D02-2487 ** THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ** Appellee. ** LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 97-16759 Opinion filed March 3, 2004. An Appeal from the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County, Ronald C. Dresnick, Judge. Cain & Snihur and May L. Cain, for appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Steven R. Berger, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before FLETCHER, RAMIREZ, and SHEPHERD, JJ. FLETCHER, Judge. Jerry Lacel Miller appeals from the denial of his petition for relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm in part, and reverse in part and remand for an evidentiary hearing. Miller s motion for post-conviction relief contained allegations that his attorney failed to interview or depose the state s primary witness1, failed to inspect certain photographic and taped discovery made available to defense by the state, and was not familiar with the record so as to be able to advise the defendant defense regarding strategies commencement of the and trial. plea the offer posture or of Miller s meaningfully the case, discuss even allegations after sufficiently described specific conduct on part of trial counsel which, if it indeed occurred, would constitute substantial and serious deficiencies measurably below that of competent counsel. As the record he does not conclusively refute Miller s claims is entitled to an evidentiary hearing thereon. Regarding the specific claims2 of failing to depose witnesses, review discovery, and follow up on certain motions to suppress, we reverse the trial court's order of denial and remand to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the trial court s denial of relief on the remaining claims.3 Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part. 1 These were found to be trial tactics. At oral argument the state was unable to suggest how deliberate ignorance of coming testimony could be beneficial to a defendant. At trial, at least, ignorance is not bliss. 2 Appellant s Grounds I and VIII , as set forth in his Brief to this court. 3 Appellant s Grounds II through VII. 2 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
