Miller v. State
340 P.3d 795
Utah Ct. App.2014Background
- Romie H. Miller III was convicted of ten counts of sexual exploitation of a minor (second-degree felonies); this conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- In 2014 Miller filed a petition under Utah Code § 78B-9-402 seeking a judicial determination of factual innocence based on allegedly newly discovered evidence and affidavits claiming he collected images to provide to federal authorities.
- The petition included heavily redacted FBI pages delivered to trial counsel and two 2003 affidavits repeating Miller’s asserted explanation for possessing the images.
- Miller also alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to subpoena school personnel) and prosecutorial misconduct, and challenged sufficiency of the evidence.
- The district court dismissed the petition as failing to allege newly discovered material evidence, as relitigation of trial issues, and because claims of ineffective assistance or prosecutorial misconduct would not establish he did not engage in the charged conduct.
- The State did not respond below or on appeal; appellate review of a factual-innocence petition is de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Miller's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller presented newly discovered material evidence that, if credible, establishes factual innocence | The FBI pages and affidavits were newly discovered or admissible because counsel failed to exercise diligence | The petition did not present newly discovered evidence and the materials were known to Miller/trial counsel | Court held petition failed to allege newly discovered material evidence and dismissed the petition |
| Whether allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel could support factual-innocence relief | Trial counsel’s failure to subpoena witnesses and develop evidence prevented presentation of exculpatory proof | Such claims, even if true, would not establish Miller did not engage in the criminal conduct | Court held ineffective-assistance claims did not show Miller’s factual innocence |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct or sufficiency challenges are properly raised in a factual-innocence petition | Miller argued prosecutorial misconduct and insufficiency of evidence undermine the verdict | Those issues amount to relitigation of the conviction or are improper for factual-innocence proceedings | Court held sufficiency and prosecutorial-misconduct claims are not proper grounds for factual-innocence relief |
| Whether the petition should proceed to the threshold review/hearing stage under the two-stage Brown procedure | Miller contended he met the threshold by alleging new evidence and showing counsel’s failure to use it | The court found the threshold was not met because evidence was not newly discovered and relitigation was apparent | Court affirmed dismissal and did not reach a hearing stage |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Miller, 104 P.3d 1272 (Utah Ct. App. 2004) (affirming Miller’s convictions and noting intent to possess images was a key jury question)
- State v. Gressman, 323 P.3d 998 (Utah 2013) (de novo review of district court summary adjudication of a factual-innocence petition)
- Brown v. State, 308 P.3d 486 (Utah 2013) (describing the two-stage procedure and threshold burden for factual-innocence petitions)