MARTHA SPIKES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that the defendant's confession was voluntary and the trial court did not err in refusing lesser included offense instructions, but erred in failing to sentence the defendant as a youthful offender.
[1] A confession is not rendered involuntary by police questioning if the defendant volunteers the statement without interrogation.
[2] A trial court is not required to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses when the evidence does not support such instructions.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was convicted of second-degree murder. She confessed after being read her Miranda rights, though she did not verbally respond. The confessio…
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 Youthful Offender Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Defendant Martha Spikes was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the second-degree murder of her child. She challenges the voluntariness of her confession, the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of assault and battery, and the trial court’s fail ure to sentence her as a youthful offender under section 958.04, Florida Statutes (1979). We affirm her conviction but vacate her sentence and remand for resentencing.
Detective Hanek decided to obtain a statement from defendant Spikes after he learned that she was the last person to see her child. Detective Hanek questioned her at her home and, later that day, spoke with her at the police station. In an interview room, he advised her of her rights. Although she uttered no verbal response, Ms. Spikes nodded her head from time to time. Officer Hanek left the room and Officer Maye entered accompanied by defendant’s mother. When Officer Maye asked defendant Spikes if the first officer had advised her of her rights and if she understood what they meant, she nodded. After her mother left the room, defendant asked what had happened to a man who had beaten his child to death. Officer Maye explained that he did not know the case to which she referred. Defendant Spikes then proceeded to describe how she had covered the baby’s nose and mouth and related other circumstances pertaining to her child’s death. These statements were uttered by defendant Spikes of her own accord and not in response to questioning by Officer Maye.
Miranda warnings are a prerequisite to custodial interrogation, and the state must establish a waiver of constitutional rights prior to interrogating a person who is in custody. Fex v. State, 386 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Because defendant Spikes volunteered her statement without police interrogation, the state was not required to establish that she had waived her rights. See Eleuterio v. Wainwright, 587 F. 2d 194 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 443 U.S. 915, 99 S.Ct. 3106, 61 L.Ed.2d 879 (1979); Antone v. State, 382 So. 2d 1205 (Fla.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 287, 66 L.Ed.2d 141 (1980); Dempsey v. State, 238 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 240 So. 2d 646 (Fla.1970).
We find no error in the court’s refusal to instruct the jury on the elements of assault and battery as lesser included offenses of second-degree murder. Martin v. State, 342 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1977) and Brown v. State, 245 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1971) serve as authority for our affirmance of the court’s action.
We find merit in defendant’s contention that the court was required to sentence her as a youthful offender under section 958.04, Florida Statutes (1979), which provides:
958.04 Eligibility for youthful offender; classification.—
(1) The court may classify as a youthful offender any person:
(a) Who is at least 18 years of age or who has been transferred for prosecution to the criminal division of the circuit court pursuant to chapter 39;
(b) Who is found guilty of or who has tendered, and the court has accepted, a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to a crime which is, under the laws of this state, a felony of the first, second, or third degree if such crime was committed before the defendant’s 21st birthday; and (c) Who has not previously been classified a youthful offender under the provisions of this act; however, no person who has been found guilty of a capital or life felony may be classified a youthful offender under this act.
(2) A person shall be classified a youthful offender if such person meets the criteria of subsection (1) and such person:
(a) Has not previously been found guilty of a felony, whether or not the adjudication of guilt has been withheld; or (b) Has not been adjudicated delinquent for an act which would be a capital, life, or first degree felony if committed by an adult.
Defendant Spikes was nineteen years old at the time the offense was committed. Her presentence investigation report dis closed no prior record. Although it is punishable by life imprisonment, second-degree murder is classified a first-degree felony. § 782.04(2), Fla.Stat. (1979). These circumstances, argues defendant Spikes, bring her within the statute’s mandate that she be sentenced by the court as a youthful offender for a period of incarceration not to exceed four years followed by a period of not more than two years to be served in a community control program under section 958.05(2).
In State v. Goodson, 403 So. 2d 1337 (Fla.1981), the supreme court ruled that the statute provides mandatory classification as a youthful offender if the statutory prerequisites are satisfied. Although defendant Spikes failed to raise the issue before the trial court, we may consider fundamental sentencing errors raised for the first time on appeal. Gonzalez v. State, 392 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
For these reasons, we affirm defendant’s conviction but vacate her sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.
. The legislature amended the statute, effective October 1, 1980, chapter 80-321, Laws of Florida, by removing its mandatory provisions. The amendment does not apply to defendant Spikes.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Christopher v. State, 583 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1991)…incriminating statements, however, not made in response to an officer’s questioning are freely admissible.” United States v. Suggs, 755 F. 2d 1538, 1541 (11th Cir.1985). See also Endress v. State, 462 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Spikes v. State, 405 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Detective Young’s comments to Christopher here were clearly not a type of interrogation since his answer to the question about Norma was not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from Christopher. See Rhode Island…
-
Rivera v. State, 547 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…The procedural safeguards pertinent to the -Miranda rule are required where a suspect is taken into custody, and subjected to interrogation. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 1689, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980). See also Spikes v. State, 405 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The term interrogation refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police, other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody, that the police should know are reasonably like…
-
Endress v. State, 462 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…980). We conclude from the record before us, however, that Detective Hunt’s visits with appellant did not rise to the level of interrogation. Halliwell v. State, 323 So. 2d 557 (Fla.1975); Ashley v. State, 265 So. 2d 685 (Fla.1972); Spikes v. State, 405 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The statements voluntarily made to him were therefore admissible. Finding no error in regard to any of appellant’s three points on appeal, we affirm. LEHAN, J., and PACK, R. WALLACE, Associate Judge, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Antone v. State, 382 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Goodson, 403 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1981)
- Brown v. State, 245 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1971)
- Martin v. State, 342 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1977)
- Gonzalez v. State, 392 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Special Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Booker, 443 U.S. 915 (U.S. 1979)
- Finney v. Balkcom, 449 U.S. 913 (U.S. 1980)
- Darrigo v. State Comm'n on Jud. Conduct, 449 U.S. 913 (U.S. 1980)
- Empresa Lineas Maritimas Argentinas v. Samuels, 443 U.S. 915 (U.S. 1979)
- Dempsey v. State, 238 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)