THEODORE BRAMWELL, 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.
The court held that the defendant's waiver of rights form, which included language about stopping questioning at any time until speaking with an attorney, was sufficient to advise him of his right to counsel during questioning, despite the Miranda card's omission.
[1] A waiver of rights form that advises a defendant they have the right to stop answering questions at any time until they talk to an attorney is sufficient to inform them o…
[2] Failure to file a motion to suppress a confession based on deficient Miranda warnings does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel when the defendant's rights we…
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 intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder and aggravated child abuse. His attorney failed to file a motion to suppress his confession …
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 first degree felony murder and aggravated child abuse of his daughter. He raises numerous issues. We affirm on all issues, but write to address the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for his attorney’s failure to file a motion to suppress his confession based upon deficient Miranda1 warnings.
In his second issue, the defendant claims that he was not advised of his right to counsel “during” questioning. Relying upon this court’s opinion in Roberts v. State, 874 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), he argues his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel when he failed to challenge those warnings in a motion to suppress. He suggests this failure warrants a reversal. We disagree.
In this case, the rights read to the defendant from the preprinted card did fail to advise the defendant of his right to counsel “during” questioning. However, the defendant also signed a waiver of rights form prior to being questioned. That form included the following language:
If you decide to answer questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering my questions at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand?
In Canete v. State, 921 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), this court found virtually identical language sufficient to advise the defendant of his right to counsel “during” questioning. For this reason, we dispose of the defendant’s contention that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel on this basis and affirm on this issue.2
Affirmed.
STONE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur. . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
. The defendant also raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel concerning statements made by his attorney during voir dire. We decline to address this issue on direct appeal and affirm without prejudice to the defendant’s right to pursue this claim pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.A.B. v. State, 957 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…torney present.” Id. at 689. The court reasoned that “[t]he totality of the warning given ... was sufficient for Cañete to readily infer that he had a right to have an attorney present ‘during’ interrogation.” Id. at 688. See also Bramwell v. State, 929 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (relying on Cañete). Unlike the warnings given to M.A.B., the warnings in Cañete did make explicit reference to the presence of an attorney. But neither the warnings given in Cañete nor the warnings given in this case expressly…
-
Lukens Martelus v. State, 979 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…did not give appellant a full Miranda warning, the supreme court determined that the trial court correctly ruled that appellant understood his rights and knowingly and intelligently waived them prior to the challenged statement. Bramwell v. State, 929 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), is also instructive. There, the defendant was read defective Miranda rights from a preprinted card that failed to advise him of his right to counsel during questioning. However, he also signed a waiver of rights form prior to be…
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Gorman Roberts, Jr. v. State, 874 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Canete v. State, 921 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)