DARRON O. WOODBERRY
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Law enforcement's general reminder of a defendant's rights when he reinitiates contact after initially invoking his Fifth Amendment Miranda rights does not automatically violate those rights.
[1] Where a defendant reinitiates contact with law enforcement after initially invoking Fifth Amendment Miranda rights, law enforcement does not automatically violate a defen…
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 intelligenceDarron O. Woodberry appealed a circuit court decision in a criminal matter. The case involved questions regarding law enforcement procedures after a d…
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 Miranda Warnings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Shelly v. State, 262 So. 3d 1, 16–17 (Fla. 2018). However, similar to what our sister court did in Penna v. State, 344 So. 3d 420, 442 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), we reword and certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question of great public importance: WHERE A DEFENDANT INITIALLY INVOKED HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT MIRANDA1 RIGHTS BUT SUBSEQUENTLY REINITIATES CONTACT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT, DOES LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATICALLY VIOLATE THOSE RIGHTS BY GENERALLY REMINDING DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHTS RATHER THAN FULLY RE-MIRANDIZING THE DEFENDANT? WALLIS, EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Leshannon Jerome Shelly v. State, 262 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2018)