RONNIE LEE SEWARD, 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.
Ronnie Lee Seward's criminal conviction was reversed because the Miranda warnings given to him were deficient—they failed to expressly advise him of his right to have counsel present during questioning. The appellate court followed controlling precedent from Powell v. State and certified the issue as one of great public importance for potential Supreme Court review.
The Miranda warnings were deficient because they failed to expressly inform Seward of his right to have counsel present during questioning. The trial court erred in denying Seward's motion to suppress, and his conviction must be reversed.
[1] Miranda warnings are deficient if they do not expressly inform a defendant of the right to have counsel present during questioning.
[2] A defendant's right to remain silent is not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived if the Miranda warnings provided are deficient.
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“the Miranda warnings were deficient in this case and the trial court erred in denying Seward's motion to suppress”
States the core holding that the warnings failed to adequately inform defendant of his 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 intelligenceSeward was arrested and given Miranda warnings before police questioning. The warnings stated he had the right to talk to a lawyer 'before answering a…
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.
This is an appeal of a criminal judgment that was converted to an Anders1 appeal after Ronnie Lee Seward filed a motion to dismiss appellate counsel. During our independent review of the record, we noticed that Seward had filed a motion to suppress in which he argued that he did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his right to remain silent before he made incriminating statements to the police. Specifically, Seward argued that the Miranda? warnings read to him did not inform him of his right to have counsel present during questioning because the warnings stated, “You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions.” We ordered supplemental briefing in light of the fact that, while this case was pending, this court had addressed the validity of the same Miranda
warnings in M.A.B. v. State, 957 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA) (en banc), review granted, 962 So. 2d 337 (Fla.2007). In M.A.B., this court split evenly on the issue, resulting in an opinion affirming the defendant’s conviction. See id.
During the supplemental briefing process in this case, this court again addressed the validity of the Miranda warnings at issue. This time, we did not review the case en banc. Instead, a divided three-judge panel held that the Miranda warnings were deficient because they did not inform the defendant of his right to have counsel present during questioning. See Powell v. State, 969 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Thus, the issue has been decided and we are bound to follow that precedent.
Accordingly, we hold that the Miranda warnings were deficient in this case and the trial court erred in denying Seward’s motion to suppress. Seward’s conviction, which was obtained after a jury trial, is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings. As we did in Powell, we certify the following question as one of great public importance pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), of the Florida Constitution and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v):
DOES THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE EXPRESS ADVICE OF THE RIGHT TO THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL DURING QUESTIONING VITIATE MIRANDA WARNINGS WHICH ADVISE OF BOTH (A) THE RIGHT TO TALK TO A LAWYER “BEFORE QUESTIONING” AND (B) THE “RIGHT TO USE” THE RIGHT TO CONSULT A LAWYER “AT ANY TIME” DURING QUESTIONING?
Reversed and remanded.
STRINGER, DAVIS, and KELLY, JJ., Concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
. 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)…So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (en banc); Mitchell v. State, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2958, — So. 3d —, 2007 WL 4355200 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec.14, 2007), notice invoking discretionary jurisdiction filed, No. SC07-2429 (Fla. Dec. 28, 2007); and Seward v. State, 973 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). As in this case, the defendants in these three cases argued that the Miranda warnings given to them were inadequate because the warnings did not specifically inform them of the right to have counsel present during police question…
-
State v. Modeste, 987 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…ey before he was questioned by the police. The primary issue in this case is the same issue that was addressed in Powell v. State, 969 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), and M.A.B v. State, 957 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). See also Seward v. State, 973 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). It is also the same issue addressed by numerous decisions rendered by the Fourth District Court. See 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. S…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Powell v. State, 969 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- M.A.B. v. State, 957 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- MAB v. State, 962 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 2007)