WILSON GRAHAM, 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 affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding the Miranda warnings constitutionally adequate and the enhanced sentencing appropriate.
Defendant was convicted of murder, attempted robbery, robbery, and burglary. He challenged the sufficiency of his Miranda warnings and his sentencing …
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 Prison Releasee Reoffender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
Wilson Graham challenges his convictions and sentences for first-degree murder, attempted robbery with a firearm, robbery with a firearm, and burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery. We affirm.
On appeal, Graham challenges the sufficiency of the Miranda1 warnings he received and argues that he should not have been sentenced as a prison releasee reof-fender because his prior commitments were juvenile commitments.
In Powell v. State, 969 So. 2d 1060, 1064, 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), this court determined that Miranda warnings that included the phrase, “You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions” were “constitutionally flawed because the right to talk to or consult with an attorney before questioning is not identical to the right of the presence of an attorney during questioning.” The warnings given to Graham are distinguishable because they advised that Graham had the right to the presence of an attorney and did not include any time-frame limitation. We therefore affirm on this point without further comment.
With regard to Graham’s enhanced sentence, we adopt the reasoning of Tatum v. State, 922 So. 2d 1004, 1005 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), in which the First District concluded that “[bjecause the statute makes no distinction between youthful offender commitments and adult commit- merits, ... the trial court was required to impose the enhanced sentences,” even where the prior commitment was in a “youthful offender boot camp.”
Affirmed.
SILBERMAN, J., and GALLEN, THOMAS M., Associate Senior Judge, 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)…ied Powell when it decided in Mitchell and Seward that the Miranda warnings were deficient because the warnings did not specifically inform the defendants of their right to have counsel present during questioning. Later, however, in Graham v. State, 974 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), the Second District distinguished Powell because the police in Graham advised the defendant that he had the right to the presence of an attorney and did not include any time-frame limitation. See Graham, 974 So. 2d at 440. In mu…
-
Anthony v. State, 980 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…econd district evenly divided on the Roberts issue in M.A.B. v. State, 957 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), rev. granted, 962 So. 2d 337 (Fla.2007). See Powell v. State, 969 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (finding Miranda violation); Graham v. State, 974 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (distinguishing Powell and finding no Miranda violation). In a case similar to Roberts, this court divided seven to five. See Canete v. State, 921 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Where judges so disagree about an issue, trial coun…
-
Francis v. State, 22 So. 3d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…[*789] PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Zeigler v. State, 18 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Graham v. State, 974 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); State v. S.V., 958 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Hutchinson v. State, 731 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Powell v. State, 969 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Tira Tatum v. State, 922 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)