BOBBY MARTIN, 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.
Martin appealed his conviction for attempted robbery with a firearm, firearm possession by a felon, and resisting arrest. The Fourth District reversed and remanded because the trial court erred in denying Martin's motion to suppress his statement, as the Miranda warnings failed to adequately advise him of his right to counsel during questioning.
The trial court did not err in denying the suppression motion based on the police brutality claim, as there was competent evidence that no brutality occurred. However, the trial court erred in denying the suppression motion based on inadequate Miranda warnings, as the warnings failed to advise Martin of his right to counsel during questioning, rendering them constitutionally defective.
[1] Miranda warnings are constitutionally defective if they fail to advise a defendant of the right to counsel during questioning.
[2] A trial court's factual findings on a motion to suppress are accepted if supported by competent, substantial evidence.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“our court has previously held that Miranda warnings similar to those given in this case are deficient”
Establishes that the court had already determined this type of warning deficiency in prior cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartin was charged with burglary of a dwelling with a firearm, attempted robbery, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and resisting arrest w…
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 Questioning cases and more on FLexlaw
MAY, J.
The defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for attempted robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and resisting arrest without violence. He argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and his motion to correct sentence. We find the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the Miranda1 warnings were inadequate. We find no other error. We reverse and remand the case for a new trial.
The State charged the defendant with burglary of a dwelling with a firearm, attempted robbery, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and resisting arrest with violence. The defendant moved to suppress his statement to the detectives, arguing the statement was involuntary because of police brutality, and because the detectives failed to warn him of his right to counsel “during” questioning. The court denied the motion on both grounds. The jury found the defendant not guilty of the burglary, but convicted him of the remaining charges. The court sentenced the defendant to 30 years in prison with a mandatory minimum of 10 years. He now appeals his conviction and sentence.
We follow well-recognized rules when reviewing trial court orders on motions to suppress. First, we accept factual findings that are supported by competent, substantial evidence. Underwood v. State, 801 So. 2d 200, 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Second, we review questions of law de novo. Id. We find no error in the denial of the motion to suppress based upon the defendant’s claim of police brutality because there was competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that no brutality occurred.
However, our court has previously held that Miranda warnings similar to those given in this case are deficient. See Roberts v. State, 874 So. 2d 1225, 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). In Roberts, we held that warnings failing to advise a defendant of the right to counsel “during” questioning are constitutionally defective. See id.; Bross v. State, 898 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The warnings given in this case suffer from the same defect. We must therefore reverse the order denying the motion to suppress on this basis and remand the case for a new trial.
We find no error in the State’s notice of intent to seek enhanced sentencing. See Washington v. State, 895 So. 2d 1141, 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
STEVENSON, C.J., and WARNER, J., 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)…ee United States v. Vanterpool, 394 F. 2d 697, 699 (2d Cir.1968); United States v. Anderson, 394 F. 2d 743, 746-47 (2d Cir.1968); State v. Arnold, 9 Or.App. 451, 496 P. 2d 919, 922-23 (1972). . The Fourth District held similarly in Martin v. State, 921 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding warning constitutionally defective because it did not advise the defendant of the right to counsel during questioning); Ripley v. State, 898 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) [*539] (finding at that time Broward County She…
-
State v. Modeste, 987 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…endant of his or her right to have counsel present during interrogation. See Seward v. State, 973 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Powell v. State, 969 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); State v. S.V., 958 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Martin v. State, 921 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Ripley v. State, 898 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); West v. State, 876 So. 2d 614, 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Franklin v. State, 876 So. 2d 607, 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Roberts v. State, 874 So. 2d 1225, 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004…
-
Tercero v. State, 963 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…ed the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Although we review the trial court’s factual findings in a ruling on a motion to suppress for competent substantial evidence, we review its legal conclusions de novo. See Martin v. State, 921 So. 2d 697, 698 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 935 So. 2d 2 (Fla.2006); Underwood v. State, 801 So. 2d 200, 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).2 Appellant does not dispute the facts leading to discovery of the contraband in this case. Rather, he argues that, as a matter…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Gorman Roberts, Jr. v. State, 874 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Washington v. State, 895 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Underwood v. State, 801 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Lopez v. State, 801 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Bross v. State, 898 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)