TONNY PRESIDENT, 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.
Tonny President was convicted by jury of three counts of robbery with a firearm, but the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction because the Miranda warnings he received failed to advise him of his right to counsel during interrogation, rendering his taped confession inadmissible. The court held that the warnings were legally insufficient and that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court held that Miranda warnings which fail to advise a suspect of the right to counsel during interrogation are inadequate and constitutionally deficient. The court further held that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the State failed to prove that President was aware of the right to counsel during questioning and knowingly waived it.
[1] Miranda warnings are legally insufficient if they fail to advise a suspect of the right to have counsel present during interrogation.
[2] A suspect's taped statement obtained after legally insufficient Miranda warnings should be suppressed.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Although the warnings informed President that he had a right to talk to a lawyer before questioning, President was not specifically advised that he could ask to speak to a lawyer during questioning.”
Identifies the specific deficiency in the Miranda warnings that rendered them inadequate
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDetective Sudman of the Broward County Sheriff's Office administered Miranda warnings to President using a preprinted BSO form. The form advised Presi…
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.
Tonny President was convicted by jury of three counts of robbery with a firearm. He appeals the conviction on the basis that the trial court should have suppressed his taped statement in which he confessed to the robbery. President contends that the Miranda1 warnings administered to him did not properly advise him of his right to have counsel present during interrogation. We hold that the Miranda warnings were legally insufficient and therefore reverse for a new trial.
President was advised of his rights under Miranda by Detective Sudman of the Broward County Sheriffs Office (BSO). Detective Sudman utilized the preprinted form that the BSO provides to its officers. The form states as follows:
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have the lawyer present before any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you, before any questioning, if you wish.
Although the warnings informed President that he had a right to talk to a lawyer before questioning, President was not specifically advised that he could ask to speak to a lawyer during questioning. We have recently addressed this same issue and held that a Miranda warning which fails to advise the suspect of the right to counsel during interrogation is inadequate. See West v. State, 876 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Franklin v. State, 2004 WL 1335758 (Fla. 4th DCA June 16, 2004); Roberts v. State, 874 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). In addition, the State has failed to produce evidence that President was aware of this right and knowingly waived it. Therefore, President’s taped statement should have been suppressed.
We are unable to conclude that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 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). Therefore, we reverse President’s conviction and sentence and remand for a new trial.
REVERSED.
WARNER, KLEIN and HAZOURI, 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
-
Tonny President v. State, 981 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…argued Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet error resulting in 69 points being improperly included. Those points were for three counts of armed robbery, which were subsequently reversed and remanded for new trial by this court in President v. State, 884 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), rev. denied, sub nom., State v. West, 892 So. 2d 1014 (Fla.2005) and then nolle 'prossed by the State. See State v. Peterson, 667 So. 2d 199, 201 n. 4 (Fla.1996) (recognizing that a criminal defendant whose sentence [*674] was b…
-
Bross v. State, 898 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ained from federal and state law enforcement agencies introduced in evidence that failed to indicate that the suspect could consult with a lawyer during questioning), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 890, 160 L.Ed.2d 825 (2005); President v. State, 884 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), review denied, 892 So. 2d 1014 (Fla.2005); West v. State, 876 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), review denied, 892 So. 2d 1014 (Fla.2005); Roberts v. State, 874 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), review denied, 892 So. 2d 1014 (Fla.…
-
Cook v. State, 896 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…t that he could consult with an attorney during questioning. The court further held that the error was not harmless in that it could not say beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement did not contribute to the verdict. See also President v. State, 884 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), review denied, State v. West, 892 So. 2d 1014 (Fla.2005) (Miranda warning that failed to advise defendant of his right to counsel during interrogation was inadequate; erroneous admission of defendant’s confession to robbery was…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Gorman Roberts, Jr. v. State, 874 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Nneka West v. State, 876 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)