JAMES PARHAM, 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.
James Parham appealed his convictions for robbery with a firearm, kidnapping, and unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing that his taped confession should have been suppressed because it was obtained without counsel. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, holding that Parham had no Sixth Amendment right to counsel for the robbery investigation since he had not yet been charged with that crime.
The trial court did not err in denying suppression. Parham had no Sixth Amendment right to counsel regarding the robbery investigation because he had not been charged with that crime, and the alleged document refusing to waive counsel rights was not found in the record. His Miranda rights were properly given and waived, making the confession admissible.
[1] A defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel has not attached in a case for which the defendant has not yet been charged.
[2] A confession obtained during custodial interrogation is admissible if the defendant is informed of their Miranda rights and knowingly and voluntarily waives those rights.
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“Parham was not represented by counsel in the Davis case because he had not been charged in that case; he did not yet have a sixth amendment right to counsel in connection with the Davis robbery.”
Establishes the key legal principle that Sixth Amendment right to counsel only attaches after charges are filed, not during general police investigation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 21, 1986, Parham allegedly robbed a truck driver. On January 28, 1986, while Parham was being held in the Dade County Jail on unrelated mat…
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 Unlawful Possession Of A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Appellant James Parham challenges his convictions and sentences for robbery with a firearm, kidnapping, and unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense. He contends that the trial court erred in failing to suppress his taped confession, obtained in the absence of counsel. We affirm.
On January 21,1986, Parham and a code-fendant, not a party to this appeal, allegedly robbed Robert Davis, a truck driver making rounds for a beer distributorship. On January 28, 1986, Parham was being held in the Dade County Jail on unrelated matters; a public defender had been appointed to represent him. Upon learning that Parham was in jail, Detective Iglesias, a Metro-Dade detective investigating the Davis robbery, brought Parham to his office and questioned him about the robbery; Parham signed a Miranda waiver form and confessed to the Davis robbery.
Parham argues that the trial court should have suppressed his confession because he had previously signed and delivered to the state a separate form stating that he would not waive his right to counsel regarding “any criminal charges pending or contemplated.” He maintains that his right to counsel and his right to freedom from self-incrimination were violated. A review of the record, however, fails to disclose the existence of such a document. As a result, we are unable to consider the effect of that document on the custodial police questioning that ensued.
We conclude that Parham’s incriminating statements were not rendered involuntary by the state’s failure to notify the public defender appointed to represent Parham in the earlier matter prior to questioning Par-ham about the Davis robbery. Parham was not represented by counsel in the Davis case because he had not been charged in that case; he did not yet have a sixth amendment right to counsel in connection with the Davis robbery. Parham had been informed of his Miranda rights, and waived those rights. Lofton v. State, 471 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 480 So. 2d 1294 (Fla.1985); see Kight v. State, 512 So. 2d 922 (Fla.1987); Waterhouse v. State, 429 So. 2d 301 (Fla.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 977, 104 S.Ct. 415, 79 L.Ed.2d 352 (1983).
Affirmed.
HUBBART and BASKIN, JJ., concur.
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge,
concurring.
The record does not support the defendant’s assertion that while under arrest in police custody he signed and delivered to the State a document stating that he would not talk with any agents of the State about the charges for which he was then incarcerated or about any other matter without the presence of his court-appointed counsel. Therefore, because the issue of whether such a document is efficacious to preclude police questioning of the in-custody defendant in the absence of his counsel is not fairly presented in this case, I concur in the decision to affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Durocher v. State, 596 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1992)…t to counsel had attached as to that second murder. McNeil v. Wisconsin, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2204, 115 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991); Right v. State, 512 So. 2d 922 (Fla.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 929, 108 S.Ct. 1100, 99 L.Ed.2d 262 (1988); Parham v. State, 522 So. 2d 991 (Fla.3d DCA 1988). The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is “offense-specific” and “cannot [*1000] be invoked once for all future prosecutions.” McNeil, 111 S.Ct. at 2207; Right (when sixth amendment has not attached to a second crime, invoking the r…
-
Rivera v. State, 547 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…COUNSEL Rivera contends that his admissions should have been suppressed because he was questioned without any attempt being made to contact counsel appointed to represent him on the misdemeanor charges for which he was arrested. In Parham v. State, 522 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), the defendant was questioned by a Metro-Dade detective about a robbery that had occurred. The defendant was in the Dade County Jail at that time on unrelated matters. The defendant signed a Miranda waiver form and confessed to th…
-
Wilson v. State, 608 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…ss his confession where the confession was given in a police initiated interview after the defendant had invoked his rights. However, there is no document in the record proving that the defendant invoked his rights. Therefore, under Parham v. State, 522 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress. Second, we also find that the trial court’s admission of Ann Simon’s in-court identification was proper. The defendant did not show any substantial likelihood o…
Authorities Cited
- Kight v. State, 512 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1987)
- Waterhouse v. State, 429 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1983)
- Nevada v. Vine, 464 U.S. 977 (U.S. 1983)
- Lofton v. State, 471 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)