Justin Ryan McMillian v. State of Florida

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the denial of Justin Ryan McMillian’s guilt-phase postconviction claims, including ineffective-assistance claims concerning his statements to law enforcement and the admission of the recorded interview. The court held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to pursue meritless suppression arguments and that McMillian knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights. Because of Hurst v. State, the court remanded for a new penalty phase.

Holdings

1. McMillian failed to establish either deficient performance or prejudice because counsel presented information concerning his injuries, hospitalization, and medication, and the substantial evidence of guilt defeated any reasonable probability of a different result.
2. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel was offense-specific, had attached only to the attempted second-degree murder charge, and did not bar questioning about the separate murder charge; McMillian also voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived the right during the interview.
3. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek redaction because interrogating officers’ statements may be admitted when they elicit relevant responses or provide context for the defendant’s statements, and McMillian showed no prejudice.
4. McMillian failed to establish prejudice from counsel’s consolidation of the cases because evidence of the shooting at the police officer during flight would have been admissible in the murder trial as consciousness-of-guilt evidence.
5. McMillian’s death sentence violated Hurst because the jury recommended death by a 10-2 vote, meaning the court could not determine that the jury unanimously found that the aggravating factors outweighed mitigation or unanimously recommended death.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present additional evidence concerning McMillian’s medical condition when he gave an inculpatory statement.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached to the attempted-murder charge and required suppression of the statement concerning the murder.
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek redaction of statements made by detectives during the recorded interrogation.
4. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for seeking consolidation of the murder and attempted-murder cases.
5. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to testimony by the victim’s parents, cell-phone testimony, prosecutorial closing arguments, and the State’s use of a combined or “dummy” indictment.
6. Whether McMillian’s death sentence violated Hurst because the jury recommended death by a nonunanimous 10-2 vote, and whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Disposition

vacated