MYRON FRANKLIN, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Myron Franklin was convicted of robbery with a firearm, aggravated fleeing and eluding, and grand theft of a motor vehicle based largely on two statements he gave in the hospital. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the Miranda warnings given to Franklin were deficient—omitting the crucial right to consult with a lawyer during questioning—and the error was not harmless.
The Miranda warnings were deficient because they omitted the crucial right to consult with a lawyer during questioning. The error was not harmless because Franklin's two statements filled gaps in the state's case, and the state cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.
[1] Miranda warnings are deficient when they omit the suspect's right to consult with a lawyer during questioning.
[2] The omission of a suspect's right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning renders Miranda warnings constitutionally inadequate.
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“Miranda does not require that attorneys be producible on call, but only that the suspect be informed ... that he has a right to an attorney before and during questioning, and that an attorney would be appointed for him if he could not afford one.”
Establishes the essential requirement that Miranda warnings must inform suspects of their right to counsel during questioning
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter a jury trial, Myron Franklin was convicted of robbery with a firearm, aggravated fleeing and eluding, and grand theft of a motor vehicle. Centra…
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 Right To Counsel During Interrogation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After a jury trial, Myron Franklin was convicted of robbery with a firearm, aggravated fleeing and eluding, and grand theft of a motor vehicle.
Central to the convictions were two statements Franklin gave in the hospital. The Miranda,1 warnings given in this case were deficient in the same way that the warnings were deficient in Roberts v. State, 874 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) and West v. State, 872 So. 2d 614, 2004 WL 1335766 (Fla. 4th DCA June 16, 2004), also decided today.
At the suppression hearing, the defense offered ninety rights forms obtained from federal and state law enforcement agencies. Eighty-nine of the ninety forms properly indicated that the suspect could consult with a lawyer during questioning. Only the form utilized in this case omitted that portion of the Miranda warning.
As this court held in West and Roberts, United States Supreme Court cases have established that the omitted portion of the Miranda warning is crucial. For example, in Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 109 S.Ct. 2875, 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989), the Supreme Court specified that “[r]eviewing courts ... need not examine Miranda warnings as if construing a will or defining the terms of an easement.” Id. at 203, 109 S.Ct. 2875. However, the Court noted: “Miranda does not require that attorneys be producible on call, but only that the suspect be informed ... that he has a right to an attorney before and during questioning, and that an attorney would be appointed for him if he could not afford one.” Id. at 204, 109 S.Ct. 2875 (emphasis added).
Furthermore, the error in this case was not harmless. Harmless error exists where the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986); Sims v. State, 839 So. 2d 807, 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). “Application of the test requires an examination of the entire record by the appellate court including a close examination of the permissible evidence on which the jury could have legitimately relied, and in addition an even closer examination of the impermissible evidence which might have possibly influenced the jury verdict.” DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d at 1135.
Here, Franklin’s two statements filled in gaps in the state’s case. We cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not contribute to the verdict.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
GUNTHER, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur. . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Powell, 998 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2008)…, 954 F. 2d at 504). Moreover, the court rejected the State’s argument that the defendant understood his rights because he also signed a “waiver of rights” Miranda form. See Roberts, 874 So. 2d at 1229.7 Thereafter, the court, in Franklin v. State, 876 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), and West v. State, 876 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), relied on Roberts and reversed the convictions where the same deficient warnings were given. The defendant in Franklin presented to the trial court ninety forms used by both…
-
Canete v. State, 921 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…orney present during questioning. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), makes it clear that suspects must be informed of their right to have an attorney present before and during questioning. See Franklin v. State, 876 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1081, 125 S.Ct. 890, 160 L.Ed.2d 825 (2005); West v. State, 876 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), rev. denied, 892 So. 2d 1014 (Fla.2005); Roberts. Although Cañete was not expressly told that he had the righ…
-
Ripley v. State, 898 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…s entitled to have counsel present during questioning or that he could stop the interrogation at any time during questioning. We have previously held that this form is legally inadequate to comply with the requirements of Miranda. Franklin v. State, 876 So. 2d 607, 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); West v. State, 876 So. 2d 614, 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Roberts v. State, 874 So. 2d 1225, 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Because the arrest of Ripley was unlawful, and because the Miranda warning they attempted to administer t…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (U.S. 1989)
- Gorman Roberts, Jr. v. State, 874 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Javis L. Sims v. State, 839 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)