WILLIAM MARCELLAS BERRY, A/K/A JAMES BERRY, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed Berry's convictions for first-degree murder, attempted armed robbery, and firearm possession, rejecting his claims that his written police statement was involuntary due to deception, promises of leniency, and inadequate Miranda warnings.
A written statement given to police after interrogation was properly admitted where no error injuriously affecting substantial rights occurred, despite claims of involuntariness and Miranda violations.
Berry was adjudicated guilty by jury verdict of first-degree murder, attempted armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during commission of a felon…
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 Police Interrogation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was adjudicated guilty and sentenced pursuant to a jury verdict finding him guilty of first-degree murder, attempted armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.
By this appeal the appellant urges a reversal of the judgments of conviction and sentences on grounds that the trial court erred in admitting a written statement given by Berry to the police officers after extensive questioning at the police station. He contends that the statement was involuntarily given and should have been suppressed because deception and a promise of leniency were used by his interrogator, deceiving him as to his true position and taking advantage of his youth and poor mental capacity. He further contends that the statement should have been suppressed because he was not properly advised of his Miranda rights.
We have carefully considered appellant’s contentions in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and conclude that no error has been shown which injuriously affected any substantial rights of the appellant. See Bush v. State, 461 So. 2d 936 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1031, 106 S.Ct. 1237, 89 L.Ed.2d 345 (1986); Thomas v. State, 456 So. 2d 454 (Fla.1984); Lucas v. State, 335 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Therefore the judgments and sentences are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bush v. State, 461 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1984)
- Jones v. United States, 475 U.S. 1031 (U.S. 1986)
- Speckin v. United States, 475 U.S. 1031 (U.S. 1986)
- THE Florida BAR v. Norvell, 456 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1984)
- Lucas v. State, 335 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)