CORY PETRUNY, 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.
Petruny appeals the summary denial of his postconviction motion claiming his plea was involuntary due to trial counsel's failure to move to suppress statements obtained in violation of Miranda rights. The court reverses and remands on the Miranda claim while affirming the denial of remaining claims.
The court reverses and remands for the trial court to determine whether Petruny has shown a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's failure to inform him of the deficiency in warnings and failure to file a suppression motion, he would not have entered the plea. A defendant cannot voluntarily waive defenses of which he is not informed.
[1] A defendant cannot voluntarily waive defenses of which they are not informed.
[2] A plea is involuntary if entered without counsel's advice regarding a potential Miranda warning defect.
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“a defendant cannot voluntarily waive defenses of which he is not informed”
Establishes the fundamental principle underlying the court's reversal—that unknown defects in Miranda warnings prevent voluntary waiver of the right to suppress statements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetruny entered a plea of guilty. Police administered Miranda warnings that allegedly contained a defect—failing to advise of the right to have counse…
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
PER CURIAM.
Cory Petruny appeals the summary denial of his multi-claim postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
We reverse and remand for further review of one point. Petruny claims that his plea is involuntary in light of trial counsel’s failure to move to suppress statements. Petruny alleges that there was a defect in the Miranda warnings that were administered by police. See Roberts v. State, 874 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), rev. denied, 892 So. 2d 1014 (Fla.2005) (finding that the warning given was insufficient to satisfy Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), because it failed to advise of the right to have counsel present during questioning and advised merely that defendant could have counsel present before questioning).
As this court has recognized, a defendant cannot voluntarily waive defenses of which he is not informed. Rouzard v. State, 952 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); see also Wilson v. State, 871 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Ethridge v. State, 766 So. 2d 413, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
The record before this court does not reveal that comparable and sufficient warnings were given. Compare Canete v. State, 921 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA) (en banc), rev. denied, 944 So. 2d 986 (Fla.2006). If no records are available to refute Petruny’s claim, the trial court on remand must determine whether Petruny has shown there is a reasonable probability that, “but for counsel’s failure to inform him of the deficiency in the warnings and failure to file a motion to suppress, he would not have entered the plea.” Rouzard, 952 So. 2d at 1292 (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985)). The summary denial of the remaining claims is affirmed.
POLEN, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Montero v. State, 996 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…efense and, as a result, the plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. A defendant’s guilty plea does not waive claims of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding unknown defenses about which the defendant was not advised. Petruny v. State, 958 So. 2d 612, 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Rouzard v. State, 952 So. 2d 1290, 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). We nevertheless affirm the summary denial of this claim because it is facially insufficient and cannot reasonably be amended in good faith to state a sufficient…
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985)
- Gorman Roberts, Jr. v. State, 874 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- State v. West, 892 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 2005)
- Canete v. State, 921 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Wilson v. State, 871 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Cauthan v. State, 944 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 2006)
- Diansky Rouzard v. State, 952 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Manger v. State, 766 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Ethridge v. State, 766 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)