BERNARD WALKER, 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.
Bernard Walker appeals his conviction for torturing or unlawfully punishing a child, arguing the trial court erred by summarily denying his motion to suppress his confession without making a specific finding of voluntariness. The court holds that a trial judge's conclusory denial lacks the required 'unmistakable clarity' and remands for an explicit ruling on the confession's voluntariness.
The trial court's conclusory denial of the motion to suppress does not meet the constitutional requirement of 'unmistakable clarity' regarding the voluntariness of a confession. Although a trial judge need not write a formal opinion, the judge's conclusion that a confession is voluntary must appear from the record with unmistakable clarity. The case is remanded for the trial judge to explicitly rule on the voluntariness of the defendant's confession.
[1] A trial court's conclusion that a confession is voluntary must appear from the record with unmistakable clarity.
[2] A trial judge's summary denial of a motion to suppress a confession, without an explicit ruling on its voluntariness, does not satisfy the requirement of unmistakable cla…
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“his conclusion that a confession is voluntary must appear from the record with 'unmistakable clarity.'”
Establishes the constitutional standard for trial court rulings on confession voluntariness
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBernard Walker was tried by jury, convicted, and sentenced to ten years in the state penitentiary for torturing or unlawfully punishing a child. Walke…
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 Voluntariness Of Confession cases and more on FLexlaw
NATHAN, Judge.
Bernard Walker, defendant, was informed against, tried by jury, convicted and sentenced to ten (10) years in the state penitentiary for torturing or unlawfully punishing a child.
For his point on appeal, Walker contends that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion to suppress his confession without a specific finding of voluntariness. The record reflects that the trial judge merely stated, “Motion to suppress denied.”
We find McDole v. State, Fla.1973, 283 So. 2d 553, to be controlling. In McDole, the Supreme Court first quoted Sims v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 538, 87 S.Ct. 639, 17 L.Ed.2d 593 (1967), which held that a trial judge need not make a formal finding of fact or write an opinion with respect to the voluntariness of a confession, but his conclusion that a confession is voluntary must appear from the record with “unmistakable clarity.” Thereupon, the court determined that such “unmistakable clarity” requirement has not been met when the trial judge states merely that the motion to suppress the confession is denied as was done in the case sub judice.
Accordingly, for the purpose of disposing of the issue of the court’s making an unequivocal and specific finding of voluntariness, on the authority of Graham v. State, Fla.App.1974, 292 So. 2d 373, we relinquish jurisdiction and remand the case to the trial judge to consider and then rule explicitly on the voluntariness of the defendant’s confession. Promptly after an order is made on the issue of voluntariness, counsel for the appellant shall file a certified copy of the order in this court. Such further proceedings shall be taken by this court as are appropriate depending upon the order submitted. Accord: Husk v. State, Fla.App.1974, 305 So. 2d 19.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anton Kevin Peterson v. State, 382 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1980)…2d 310 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); Hester v. State, 357 So. 2d 481 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Phelps v. State, 353 So. 2d 1221 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Von Horn v. State, 334 So. 2d 43 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Walker v. State, 319 So. 2d 642 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Walker v. State, 311 So. 2d 768 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Graham v. State, 292 So. 2d 373 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Smith v. State, 288 So. 2d 522 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Knight v. State, 373 So. 2d 52 (Fla.4th DCA 1979); Bul-lard v. State, 358 So. 2d 48 (Fla.4th DCA 1978); Greene v. State, 351 So.…
-
Walker v. State, 319 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…motion to suppress a confession, without making an express finding as to voluntariness. Originally, we relinquished jurisdiction of this cause to the trial court to make an ex [*643] press finding as to voluntariness; Walker v. State, Fla.App.1975, 311 So. 2d 768; however, the trial judge is no longer on the bench. We have, therefore, again taken jurisdiction and have examined the entire record which shows that Walker was read his rights, and that he signed a document stating that he was advised of his righ…
Authorities Cited
- Sims v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1967)
- McDOLE v. State, 283 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1973)
- In the Interest of Floyd Steven Husk v. State, 305 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Koerner v. State, 292 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)