Mills v. Singletary
| Decision Date | 01 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 80326,80326 |
| Citation | 622 So.2d 943 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. S209, 18 Fla. L. Week. S343 John MILLS, Jr., Petitioner, v. Harry K. SINGLETARY, etc., Respondent. |
Larry Helm Spalding, Capital Collateral Representative, and Gail E. Anderson and Martin J. McClain, Asst. Capital Collateral Representatives, Office of Capital Collateral Representative, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Mark C. Menser, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
John Mills, a prisoner on death row, petitions the Court for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const. We deny the petition because the issues raised in it are procedurally barred.
This is Mills' fourth habeas petition, and we have ruled against him in all prior proceedings: Mills v. State, 462 So.2d 1075 (Fla.) (direct appeal), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 911, 105 S.Ct. 3538, 87 L.Ed.2d 661 (1985); Mills v. State, 507 So.2d 602 (Fla.1987) (); Mills v. Dugger, 523 So.2d 578 (Fla.1988) (second habeas petition); Mills v. Dugger, 574 So.2d 63 (Fla.1990) (third habeas petition). Mills raises two issues in the instant petition: 1) the instructions on the aggravators of heinous, atrocious, or cruel and cold, calculated, and premeditated were invalid and, therefore, resentencing is required by Espinosa v. Florida, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 2926, 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992), and Sochor v. Florida, --- U.S ----, 112 S.Ct. 2114, 119 L.Ed.2d 326 (1992); and 2) finding committed during a felony as an aggravator was an improper automatic aggravator. These issues are procedurally barred because they could have been, should have been, or were raised previously. Mills, 574 So.2d at 65.
At trial Mills objected that the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator did not apply to the facts of his case. The trial judge disagreed and instructed the jury as to that factor and, of his own volition, expanded the instruction to define the terms. Mills did not object to the form of the instruction and such an objection is necessary to preserve an Espinosa claim. Likewise, Mills did not object at trial that the wording of the instruction of the cold, calculated aggravator was unconstitutionally insufficient, and, thus, his current claim is procedurally barred. Hodges v. State, 595 So.2d 929 (Fla.1992). Mills attacked these instructions in his third habeas petition, but we found the issue procedurally barred. Id. 574 So.2d at 64-65.
Relief is also not warranted because of Sochor. In Sochor the Court remanded for our consideration...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mills v. Singletary
...habeas corpus petition with the supreme court; the court denied relief on that petition on April 1, 1993. See Mills v. Singletary, 622 So.2d 943 (Fla.1993) (per curiam) ("Mills V"). 11 Mills also raises two new claims on appeal, arguing that the trial court's charge to the jury in the sente......
-
State v. Lancaster
... ... We note that this case is distinguishable from Meola v. Department of Corrections, 732 So.2d 1029 (Fla.1998), and Thomas v. Singletary, 729 So.2d 369 (Fla.1998), in which we are denying relief. Meola and Thomas, as well as another gain time case, Gomez v. Singletary, 733 ... ...
-
Mills v. State
...next several years, Mills filed three separate petitions for writ of habeas corpus in this Court, which were denied. See Mills v. Singletary, 622 So.2d 943 (Fla.1993); Mills v. Dugger, 574 So.2d 63 (Fla.1990); Mills v. Dugger, 523 So.2d 578 (Fla.1988). Recently, the Eleventh Circuit Court o......
-
Roberts v. Singletary
...instruction on the grounds of vagueness or unconstitutionality. See, e.g., Sims v. Singletary, 622 So.2d 980 (Fla.1993); Mills v. Singletary, 622 So.2d 943 (Fla.1993); Atkins v. Singletary, 622 So.2d 951 (Fla.1993); Turner v. Dugger, 614 So.2d 1075, 1081 (Fla.1992); Melendez v. State, 612 S......