RONALD ROY DAVIS, 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.
Ronald Davis appeals his robbery conviction, arguing his constitutional right to counsel was violated when jail staff prevented his attorney from seeing him before police interrogation. The Florida appellate court agreed, finding that the denial of access to counsel prior to the defendant's custodial interrogation violated his constitutional rights, particularly given his status as a minor.
The court held that Davis' constitutional right to counsel was violated. The jailers' denial of the attorney's request to see his client at least 30 minutes before the detective's interrogation—whether due to administrative problems or deliberate deprivation—resulted in the 17-year-old being deprived of effective representation by counsel at the critical stage when legal advice would have been most helpful.
[1] A defendant's constitutional right to counsel is denied when jailers prevent an attorney from seeing their client prior to the client making a statement.
[2] A minor defendant's right to counsel is particularly critical at the stage when legal aid and advice would be most helpful.
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“this seventeen year old boy was deprived of "effective representation by counsel at the only state when legal aid and advice would help him."”
Establishes the core holding that denial of counsel access during custodial interrogation violates constitutional rights, especially for a minor defendant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis, age 17, was arrested on February 10, 1972, advised of his rights, and taken to the sheriff's department where he signed a consent to interview …
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 Robbery cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Judge.
Appellant Davis appeals a judgment entered upon his conviction of the crime of robbery, after the lower court had denied Davis’ motion to suppress his oral statement made to a detective. This was the only evidence to connect Davis with the crime, since the victim of the robbery was unable to identify him as one of the robbers.
Davis contends that his constitutional right to have counsel was denied when the jailer prevented his attorney from seeing him prior to making his statement. We agree.
Davis was arrested on February 10, 1972, advised of his constitutional rights and taken to the interrogation section of the sheriff’s department where he signed a “consent to interview,” but did not give a statement at that time, stating to the detective that he was confused and needed time to get his thoughts together. Davis’ father employed an attorney to represent his minor son. The following morning at approximately 9:30 A.M. the attorney called at the couty jail, made a request of the officer on duty to,see his client and signed the interview docket at the desk. He was advised by the jailers that they were too busy to get Davis, although other attorneys were permitted to see their clients.
The detective who obtained the oral confession testified that he arrived at the county jail on the same morning, signed the record at the desk to interview Davis, and shortly thereafter, between 10:00 and 11:00 A.M. Davis was sent to the interview room where the detective interrogated him between thirty minutes and an hour. While still waiting to see his client at approximately 11:00 A.M., Davis’ attorney saw the detective and Davis after they had come out of the interview room, and was told by the detective that he was taking Davis upstairs to reduce his confession to writing.
We think that the facts in this case are distinguishable from those in State v. Craig, Fla.1970, 237 So. 2d 737. In the first place, Davis was only seventeen years of age when he was arrested for the crime, and his father immediately hired an attorney to advise and protect the interests of his minor son. In the second place, the record is clear that Davis’ attorney requested to see his client at least thirty minutes before the detective made his request to interview Davis.
Whether this was the result of administrative problems or a deliberate attempt to deprive the defendant of the aid of counsel until after a confession had been obtained, the result was that this seventeen year old boy was deprived of “effective representation by counsel at the only state when legal aid and advice would help him.” See Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977.
In view of our ruling, it is unnecessary to consider the other point raised by appellant.
The judgment appealed is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
MANN, C. J., concurs.
BOARDMAN, J., concurs in conclusion only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1964)
- State v. Craig, 237 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1970)