PATRICK GUSTIN, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed conviction and sentence, rejecting challenges to information amendment, suppression of statement, and judgment of acquittal.
Appellant's conviction and sentence are affirmed because the information amendment was properly addressed in co-defendant's appeal, the statement was admissible as appellant reinitiated contact after invoking rights outside custodial interrogation context, and he was not entitled to acquittal.
[1] When a defendant invokes the right to counsel at a magistrate's hearing outside the context of imminent custodial interrogation, the invocation does not bar subsequent po…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.”
Court explained that Edwards v. Arizona permits police interrogation when accused reinitiated contact after invoking right to counsel.
Appellant was convicted of a crime involving taking property from a person's custody through violence or intimidation.…
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 Invocation Of Right To Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence. The issue he raises with respect to the amendment of the information during trial was disposed of by this court in the appeal of his co-defendant in Jean v. State, 11 So.3d 421 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). His claim that his statement should have been suppressed because he invoked his rights at a magistrate’s hearing lacks merit because it did not occur when custodial interrogation was imminent, see Sapp v. State, 690 So.2d 581, 584 (Fla.1997), and also because appellant himself reinitiated contact with police after the invocation. *1026 See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1885, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981) (“[H]aving expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” (Emphasis added)). Finally, he was not entitled to a judgment of acquittal. See Perry v. State, 801 So.2d 78, 86-87 (Fla.2001) (property can be taken from a person’s custody “if it is sufficiently under the victim’s control so that the victim could have prevented the taking if [he] had not been subjected to the violence or intimidation by the robber”).
WARNER, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981)
- Sapp v. State, 690 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1997)
- Perry v. State, 801 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2001)
- Jean v. State, 11 So. 3d 421 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)