REGINALD CLARK AND JOE LEE COLEY, APPELLANTS,
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.
This case reviews a robbery conviction where the appellants argued that their constitutional rights were violated by the introduction of a co-defendant's statement and inadequate Miranda warnings. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that the statement was voluntary and not subject to Miranda, and that the defendants received adequate warnings and were not subject to custodial interrogation.
No, the appellants' constitutional rights were not violated. The voluntary statement made by Coley was not subject to Miranda warnings, and the defendants received adequate warnings and were not subjected to custodial interrogation.
“We hold that the admonition in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) has no application to this situation.”
Establishes that Miranda warnings do not apply to voluntary statements made at the scene of an arrest.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Reginald Clark and Joe Lee Coley were found guilty and sentenced for robbery. During the arrest, appellant Coley made a voluntary, spontane…
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 Custodial Interrogation cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants were found guilty and sentenced for robbery. On this appeal they present two points. The first applies to appellant Clark only and urges that he was deprived of his constitutional rights by the introduction of testimony as to a voluntary spontaneous statement by appellant Coley at the scene of the arrest. We hold that the admonition in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) has no application to this situation. See also Jones v. State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 574; Kinsey v. State, Fla.App.1967, 193 So.2d 437.
The second point urges that appellants were not adequately warned as required by Miranda v. State of Arizona, supra. The record reveals a full and adequate warning to the defendants by the arresting officer and in addition, reveals no custodial interrogation. See Biglow v. State, Fla.App.1967, 205 So.2d 547.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Woods v. State, 211 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…243, 153 N.W. 2d 916, 917 (1967); State v. Travis, 49 N.J. 428, 231 A. 2d 205, 207 (1967); State v. McDaniel, 272 N.C. 556, 158 S.E. 2d 874, 880 (1968); Commonwealth v. Sites, 427 Pa. 486, 235 A. 2d 387, 389 (1967). . Clark v. State, Fla.App.1968, 207 So. 2d 481; Glover v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 676; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So. 2d 574, 576, 577. . Fendley v. United States, 384 P. 2d 923 (5th Cir. 1967). . Id. at 923, 924. . Id. 384 F. 2d at 924.…
-
Hill v. State, 223 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…ill’s contention here. Other cases are in accord with this holding: Patrick v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 62; Colebrook v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 205 So. 2d 675; Solino v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 387 F. 2d 354; Clark v. State, Fla.App.1968, 207 So. 2d 481; Anderson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 207 So. 2d 518; and Brisbon v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 201 So. 2d 832. The judgment of conviction appealed is therefore Affirmed. HOBSON, Acting C. J., and MANN, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Jones v. State, 200 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Biglow v. State, 205 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Hudson Kinsey v. State, 193 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)