STEPHEN DELUCA, 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.
Stephen DeLuca appeals his conviction for burglary and grand larceny, challenging the admission of physical evidence obtained from a consent search and his post-arrest confession. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that DeLuca waived appellate review of the evidence issue by failing to object at trial and that re-advisement of Miranda rights was not required before his confession.
The court held that the failure to object at trial to the admission of physical evidence constitutes a waiver of the right to appellate review of that issue. Additionally, re-advisement of Miranda rights is not required for a valid waiver where a defendant has received full initial Miranda warnings and subsequently makes incriminating statements.
[1] Failure to object to the admission of evidence at trial constitutes a waiver of the right to appellate review of that issue.
[2] A defendant's consent to a search is not rendered invalid by the police's statement that a warrant could be obtained, especially when the defendant acknowledges being inf…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The failure to object at trial contemporaneously with the admission of the evidence is a waiver of the right to appellate review of the issue.”
Establishes the procedural waiver doctrine that prevents appellate review when a party fails to contemporaneously object at trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice investigating a burglary focused on DeLuca as a suspect. At the police station, DeLuca was advised of his Miranda rights and signed a waiver ca…
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 Waiver Of Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
Defendant appeals his conviction after jury trial of burglary and grand larceny. Error is asserted in the denial of a motion to suppress physical evidence and the admission of a confession.
The police were investigating a burglary and defendant became the focus of this investigation. While at the police station, defendant was advised of his constitutional protections and executed a Miranda Rights Waiver Card. He initially stated to the police that he was not involved in the burglary in question or any other burglary. One of the items taken in the burglary was a particular gold chain and medallion. Defendant wore such a chain when initially questioned and was asked by the officers for consent to search his motel room. It appears defendant consented to the search and signed a consent form. Defendant testified he signed the consent only because the police said a warrant could be obtained. Defendant acknowledges he was told he had the right to refuse. The search disclosed a larger amount of jewelry and other items which after prompt investigation appeared to be stolen.
On the day after the signing of the Miranda Rights Waiver Card defendant was contacted by the police and told of the results of the continued investigation. Without a further Miranda warning, defendant made various inculpatory statements.
Before trial defendant moved to suppress both the evidence seized from his room and his confessions. These motions were denied and the case proceeded to jury trial. During trial the physical evidence was admitted without objection from defense counsel. In fact counsel repeatedly stated that he had no objection. Defendant asserts the consent to search was invalid, that the motion to suppress should have been granted and that the failure to object at trial does not constitute a waiver. We disagree. The failure to object at trial contemporaneously with the admission of the evidence is a waiver of the right to appellate review of the issue. Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); O’Berry v. Wainwright, 300 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Witt v. State, 4th DCA Case No. 79-621, Opinion filed May 14, 1980.
The defendant also asserts that his statements to the police officer should have been suppressed. He argues that his Miranda rights should have been repeated because his confession occurred 24 hours after his arrest. The defendant was initially given full Miranda warnings and voluntarily consented to a search. There is no necessity to continually re-advise an individual in custody as to his Miranda rights. The Federal Courts have considered this issue and held that re-advisement of Miranda rights is not necessary to a valid finding of a knowing and intelligent waiver. See Biddy v. Diamond, 516 F. 2d 118 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. den. 425 U.S. 950, 96 S.Ct. 1724, 48 L.Ed.2d 194 (1976); Maguire v. United States, 396 F. 2d 327 (9th Cir. 1960); and U. S. ex rel. Henne v. Fike, 563 F. 2d 809 (7th Cir. 1977). In Franklin v. State, 324 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), the First District held a 30-minute interval did not necessitate re-advising a defendant who had been reminded of earlier warnings.
Although no directly controlling Florida authority has been cited to us, we conclude that the defendant has failed to demonstrate error and the conviction below is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD and MOORE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Kruse v. State, 483 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…the child was truthful in relating her account of the sexual assault. However, no objection to this statement was raised at trial and as such the objection must be considered waived. Witt v. State, 388 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); DeLuca v. State, 384 So. 2d 212, 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). In our view direct testimony on the credibility of witnesses is inherently unreliable. We have already discussed some problems relating to a juror’s treatment of expert testimony. Some bolstering of a party’s credibility ca…
-
Parker v. State, 456 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1984)…t at trial to the introduction of the three items of information and, thus, has not properly preserved the issue for appeal. Routly v. State, 440 So. 2d 1257 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 3591, 82 L.Ed.2d 888 (1984); DeLuca v. State, 384 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 389 So. 2d 1108 (Fla.1980); Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Second, even if the merits are reached, the totality of circumstances surrounding the interview clearly show that defendant voluntarily wa…
-
Achurra v. Achurra, 80 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…ing counsel’s request and the court’s stated intent to take judicial notice, this issue was not properly preserved for appellate review, and we decline to consider it. Celentano v. Banker, 728 So. 2d 244, 245-46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); DeLuca v. State, 384 So. 2d 212, 212-13 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (holding that the failure to object to the admission of contested evidence waived the right to appellate review of the issue). Second and third, Mr. Achurra argues that the trial court failed to make findings of fact to…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Int'l Union of Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers, AFL-CIO v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 425 U.S. 950 (U.S. 1976)
- Buchanon v. United States, 425 U.S. 950 (U.S. 1976)
- Blowers v. Williams, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Maguire v. United States, 396 F.2d 327 (9th Cir. 1968)
- Carolee Biddy v. Diamond, 516 F.2d 118 (5th Cir. 1975)
- United States ex rel. Willie B. Henne v. Fike, 563 F.2d 809 (7th Cir. 1977)
- O'Berry v. Louie L. Wainwright, 300 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Franklin v. State, 324 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)