C.T., A JUVENILE, 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 affirmed a juvenile's delinquency adjudication, holding that a Miranda waiver need not be in writing and that a prior assertion of the right to remain silent does not bar a subsequent voluntary waiver.
A juvenile's Miranda waiver need not be in writing, and a prior assertion of the right to remain silent does not preclude a subsequent voluntary waiver of that right.
[1] A Miranda waiver from a juvenile need not be in writing to be valid.
[2] A juvenile's prior assertion of the right to remain silent does not preclude a subsequent voluntary waiver of that right when the juvenile is fully apprised of his rights…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA juvenile was taken into police custody and made a confession. The juvenile had previously asserted the right to remain silent but later waived both …
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 Voluntary Waiver Of Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The adjudication of delinquency under review is affirmed based on the following holdings: (1) the trial court, as the trier of fact, was not required to find, as urged, that the juvenile requested counsel 'prior to his confession to the police because the juvenile’s testimony below on this subject, which admittedly is unrefuted, does not establish this fact (Tr. 14), Von Horn v. State, 334 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 341 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.1977); (2) as we have held in another opinion filed this day and involving the same issue, there is, in our view, no requirement that a Miranda waiver from a juvenile be in writing, T.J. v. State, 460 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see State v. Cartwright, 448 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); In re H.D., 443 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); see also Jordan v. State, 334 So. 2d 589 (Fla.1976); contra S.L.W. v. State, 445 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); and (3) the juvenile was otherwise fully apprised of his right to counsel and right to remain silent, the juvenile voluntarily waived those rights notwithstanding a prior assertion of the right to remain silent, and the trial court properly admitted the juvenile’s confession in evidence below, Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); Mullings v. State, 452 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. In the Interest of D.L.B., 467 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…H.D., (Fla.S.Ct. case no. 64,796). We also note that the Third District, citing Cartwright and H.D., recently held that a juvenile’s waiver of counsel is not required to be in writing. T.J. v. State, 460 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); C.T. v. State, 460 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Were it not for this court’s earlier decisions in S.L. W. and M.L.H., this panel would likely reverse the suppression orders in the instant ease for the same reasons which have apparently guided our sister courts. However, we a…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (U.S. 1975)
- Jordan v. State, 334 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1976)
- von Horn v. State, 334 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- S.L.W. v. State, 445 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- State v. Cartwright, 448 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- In the Interest of H.D., 443 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Snyderman v. State, 443 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Kaye v. Burghard Steiner & Allstate Ins. Co., 460 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Mullings v. State, 452 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)