JOHN SAN MARTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
A defendant's statement indicating awareness that no attorney was present does not invalidate an otherwise valid Miranda waiver.
The defendant was convicted of attempted armed robbery and armed burglary. He challenged the admission of his inculpatory statements, arguing his Mira…
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 Waiver Of Miranda Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
On this appeal from convictions and a 30-year sentence with a 25-year min-man for attempted armed robbery and armed burglary, the sole issue challenges the admission of the defendant’s inculpato-ry statements to the police. Of the various grounds asserted, the only one which deserves discussion argues that the Miranda *1172waiver, which was otherwise impeccably secured, was spoiled by the utterance, “S-t, nigga ain’t got one,”1 stated while he was indicating his willingness to speak without counsel by initialing that provision of the standard waiver form. It was not.
In agreement with both sides, we take it from this comment that the defendant was reflecting his awareness of and perhaps displeasure with the fact that there was no attorney actually present when he waived his Miranda rights. It is established, however, that these rights do not include one to have a lawyer immediately available before questioning can begin. As the Supreme Court has stated, “Miranda does not require that attorneys be producible on call ... Miranda requires only that the police not question a suspect unless he waives his right to counsel,” [e.s.], which San Martin clearly did. See Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 204, 109 S.Ct. 2875, 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989); see also Everett v. State, 893 So.2d 1278, 1285 (Fla.2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 987, 125 S.Ct. 1865, 161 L.Ed.2d 747 (2005).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (U.S. 1989)
- Almeida v. State, 737 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1999)
- Everett v. State, 893 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2004)
- Florida v. Almeida, 528 U.S. 1182 (U.S. 2000)
- Provenzano v. Moore, 528 U.S. 1182 (U.S. 2000)
- Ratcliff v. State Bar of Tex., 544 U.S. 987 (U.S. 2005)
- Payton v. Mississippi, 544 U.S. 987 (U.S. 2005)