STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DOMINICK LAVDEAH FLETCHER AND RODNEY LEWIS LEE, APPELLEES
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 State appeals a trial court's suppression order regarding custodial statements from two defendants. The appellate court reverses, holding that the Miranda warnings given—stating defendants had "the right to the presence of an attorney"—satisfied constitutional requirements and were not misleading like the warnings in Powell v. State.
The court held that the unrestricted warning "You have the right to the presence of an attorney" satisfies Miranda's constitutional requirements because it does not limit when a defendant can exercise the right to counsel, distinguishing it from the problematic warning in Powell.
[1] Miranda warnings are satisfied when a suspect is informed of the right to the presence of an attorney, without restriction as to time.
[2] A Miranda warning that informs a suspect only of the right to talk to a lawyer before answering questions may be misleading and fail to satisfy Miranda requirements.
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“You have the right to the presence of an attorney.”
The exact warning language on the card given to defendants, which the court found constitutional because it is unrestricted and does not limit when counsel can be present.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants Dominick Lavdeah Fletcher and Rodney Lewis Lee signed "Warnings to Suspects" cards that stated "You have the right to the presence of an at…
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 Duress cases and more on FLexlaw
The State appeals the trial court’s order granting motions to suppress filed by defendants Dominick Lavdeah Fletcher and Rodney Lewis Lee. We reverse.
The defendants’ motions raised two grounds for suppression of their custodial statements to police. First, they claimed they received faulty Miranda1 warnings because officers did not adequately inform them of their right to the presence of an attorney both before and during questioning. Second, the defendants claimed that their statements “were a product of deceit, coercion and duress, therefore involuntary and illegal.” The trial court declined to address the second ground, finding that the warning given to the defendants did not satisfy the requirements of Miranda as explained in this court’s opinion of Powell v. State, 969 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).2
*1041In Powell, Mr. Powell was given Miranda warnings that informed him only that he had the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any questions. State v. Powell, 998 So.2d 531, 541 (Fla.2008). This court and the Florida Supreme Court explained in their respective Powell decisions that such an instruction did not satisfy Miranda because it could mislead a suspect to believe that he did not have a right to the advice and counsel of an attorney during questioning. Id.
However, Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Lee signed “Warnings to Suspects” cards which state, “You have the right to the presence of an attorney.” This unrestricted warning is distinguished from the one given in Powell and identical to language recently approved by this court in State v. Smith, 6 So.3d 652, 653 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (holding that the statement satisfied the constitutional requirements set forth in Miranda because it did not limit the time during which the defendant could exercise his right to counsel). See also Graham v. State, 974 So.2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), review denied, 984 So.2d 1250 (Fla.2008) (same).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order. On remand, the trial court shall consider the other ground raised in the defendants’ motions to suppress.
Reversed and remanded.
ALTENBERND and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- State v. Powell, 998 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2008)
- Powell v. State, 969 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Casey v. State, 984 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 2008)
- Graham v. State, 974 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- State v. Smith, 6 So. 3d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)