THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ANTONIO FERRER, 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 State appeals a suppression order excluding the defendant's confessions. The court reverses, holding that the defendant's reinitiation of contact with police after invoking counsel, combined with fresh Miranda warnings and valid waiver, cured any constitutional defect, and that the defendant's misunderstanding of legal consequences does not render his confession involuntary.
The court held that where a defendant reinstitutes contact with police after invoking counsel, there is no violation of constitutional rights under Edwards v. Arizona. The defendant's refusal to make a written statement without counsel did not negate his willingness to speak after receiving fresh Miranda warnings. Additionally, a defendant's misunderstanding of legal consequences does not render an otherwise voluntary admission or confession inadmissible.
[1] A defendant's constitutional rights are not violated when, after invoking the right to counsel, the defendant reinstitutes contact with the police.
[2] A defendant's refusal to make a written statement without an attorney does not negate a prior willingness to speak after receiving renewed Miranda warnings.
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 intelligence“Where the defendant, after invoking his right to counsel, reinstituted contact with the police, there was no violation of his constitutional rights.”
Establishes that defendant-initiated contact after invocation of counsel cures the Edwards violation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was arrested based on an informant's tip linking him to a homicide. During initial interrogation, he denied involvement and invoked his righ…
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 Invocation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State appeals from an order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress his confessions, admissions, and statements. The order suppressing evidence is reversed, and the cause remanded for further consistent proceedings. The defendant was arrested pursuant to an informant’s tip that he and two others were responsible for a homicide. During an initial interrogation the defendant denied any involvement in the crime and signed a Notice of Defendant’s Invocation of the Right to Counsel. The defendant later contacted detectives at the City of Miami Homicide Office, indicating a willingness to talk. Before questioning the defendant a second time, the detectives gave the defendant Miranda warnings. The defendant signed a form waiving his right to counsel during the interview and then gave the same exculpatory statement that he had previously given. After one of the detectives commented that the defendant was wasting their time the defendant broke down and told of his part in the homicide. When the detectives tried to get a formal written statement, the defendant indicated that he did not understand the invocation of rights and attorney waiver forms, and he asked for his attorney.
Where the defendant, after invoking his right to counsel, reinstituted contact with the police, there was no violation of his constitutional rights. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1885, 68 L.Ed.2d 378, 386 (1981). The defendant’s refusal to make a written statement without his attorney being present did not negate his willingness to speak after he had been given his Miranda rights again, which he fully understood. Connecticut v. Barrett, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 828, 93 L.Ed.2d 920 (1987).
The defendant admitted to peripheral participation in the offense being investigated on a mistaken belief that as the driver of the getaway car he could not be convicted of the substantive offense. The fact that an accused misunderstands the legal consequences of certain actions, which he otherwise freely acknowledges to have been committed by him, makes the admission or confession no less willing or admissible as evidence. Connecticut v. Barrett, — U.S. at -, 107 S.Ct. at 833, 93 L.Ed.2d at 929 (defendant’s ignorance of the full consequences of his decisions does not vitiate their voluntariness).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Z.F.B. v. State, 573 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…his Miranda rights, was voluntary. See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Long v. State, 517 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1987), cert. denied, 486 [*1033] U.S. 1017, 108 S.Ct. 1754, 100 L.Ed.2d 216 (1988); State v. Ferrer, 507 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Accordingly we affirm. COPE and GERSTEN, JJ., concur. SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge (dissenting). Since it is undisputed that, after Z.F.B. requested an attorney, it was not he, but his “guardian,” supplied to him apparently for that…
-
Bradwell v. State, 656 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523, 107 S.Ct. 828, 93 L.Ed.2d 920 (1987); Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); State v. Ferrer, 507 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); State v. Williams, 386 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).…
-
Rondale Voncha Carter v. State, 697 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…der); Rubasky v. State, 401 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 5th DCA) (when competent evidence supports the trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, no basis for reversal exists), cert. den., 454 U.S. 973, 102 S.Ct. 524, 70 L.Ed.2d 393 (1981); State v. Ferrer, 507 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (defendant’s verbal confession, given after invoking right to counsel, reinstituting contact with police, and receiving Miranda rights, was voluntary even though he refused to make written statement without presence of counsel); C…
Authorities Cited
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981)
- Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523 (U.S. 1987)