CORRIE DEONNE CHAMBERS, 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.
Corrie Chambers appealed his conviction for burglary with assault, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress a confessional tape and various evidentiary rulings. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the confession was voluntary based on the trial court's credibility findings and the totality of circumstances.
The trial court properly denied the motion to suppress because the confession was freely and voluntarily made. The trial court's determination, based on the totality of circumstances including Chambers's demeanor on the tape and the detailed information he provided, is amply supported by the record and will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous.
[1] A confession is presumed voluntary once the state makes a prima facie showing of its voluntariness, shifting the burden to the defendant to prove involuntariness.
[2] A trial court's ruling on the voluntariness of a confession will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous.
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“It is clearly apparent by the demeanor and content of the tape itself, that he is supplying the police with information they could not have known unless he supplied it.”
The trial court's finding that Chambers provided details proving his voluntary cooperation with police.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChambers confessed to a home invasion robbery involving two accomplices. At the suppression hearing, the detective testified that Chambers appeared to…
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 Burglary With Assault cases and more on FLexlaw
GERSTEN, J.
We withdraw the opinion filed June 30, 1999, and substitute the following corrected opinion in its stead.
Appellant, Corrie Chambers (“defendant”), appeals his conviction and sentence for burglary with an assault claiming the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and in several other evidentiary rulings. We affirm.
The defendant primarily contends that his confession to a home invasion robbery was not freely and voluntarily made. According to the defendant, he signed a waiver form and provided a tape recorded statement “out of fear” because he was assaulted and threatened by two City of Miami police officers.
At the suppression hearing, the detective who questioned the defendant testified that the defendant: seemed in good spirits, was drinking a soda, and acknowledged verbally and in writing that he understood the orally read Miranda warnings. After voluntarily signing the waiver form, the detective conducted a pre-interview where the defendant stated that he and two accomplices had been involved in the home invasion robbery. The defendant then agreed to make a tape-recorded statement which was played at the suppression hearing.
At the conclusion of the entire hearing, the trial court made the following findings:
I have listened to the testimony of the officer in this case and listened To the testimony of Mr. Chambers. I have also listened to a portion of the tape about, seems to me about if it was nine minutes, I listened to about half of it. During the tape I listened to the demeanor of the question and answer session. It appears to me from the statement that Mr. Chambers is supplying the police with information that they did not know, unless there was a handwritten script, which it does not appear to me neither side raised the fact that there was a script written out for Mr. Chambers.
It appears he gave information. When asked who had the guns, he knew David had the guns!,
When asked about something he refers to someone named Brown. I think that is a nickname because there is no one in the Indictment named Brown. So, apparently he is referring to one of his co-defendants by a nickname.
It is clearly apparent by the demeanor and content of the tape itself, that he is supplying the police with information they could not have known unless he supplied it.
I find in terms of credibility that I do not believe the defendant was forced, beaten, et cetera. I believe this was a free and voluntary statement and it is admissible.
It is well established that once the State has made a prima facie showing of the voluntariness of a confession, the burden of proof then shifts to the defendant to show that the confession was not voluntary. See Reddish v. State, 167 So. 2d 858 (Fla.1964); Snipes v. State, 651 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Moreover, a trial court’s ruling on the voluntariness of a confession will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. See Bonifay v. State, 626 So. 2d 1310 (Fla.1993); Thompson v. State, 548 So. 2d 198 (Fla.1989).
Here, the trial judge looked at the totality of the circumstances and determined that the confession was the result of the defendant’s free and volitional choice. See Johnson v. State, 696 So. 2d 326 (Fla.1997); Traylor v. State, 596 So. 2d 957 (Fla.1992); Nelson v. State, 688 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The trial judge’s well reasoned decision is amply supported by the record and we determine that the motion to suppress was properly denied. See Butler v. State, 706 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Because the defendant’s remaining contentions equally lack merit, we affirm the order below in all respects.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.A.B. v. State, 957 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…[the] defendant has been told or has read all the rights and admonitions required in Miranda, and the defendant indicates he understands them and is willing to make a statement, a prima facie case ... has been established.”); cf. Chambers v. State, 742 So. 2d 466, 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“It is well established that once the State has made a prima facie showing of the voluntariness of a confession, the burden of proof then shifts to the defendant to show that the confession was not voluntary."); In re G.G.P.…
-
Pierre v. State, 844 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…de that the trial court’s denial of the defendant-appellant’s motion to suppress evidence is supported by the record. “[A] trial court’s ruling on the voluntariness of a confession will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous.” Chambers v. State, 742 So. 2d 466, 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Regarding closing arguments, we conclude that the trial court’s rulings were within its discretion. “[T]he trial court’s ruling on these matters will not be overturned unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown.” Hooper v…
-
Wright v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…fession. Johnson v. State, 696 So. 2d 326, 329 (Fla. 1997); Traylor v. State, 596 So. 2d 957, 964 (Fla. 1992). Moreover, a trial court's ruling on the voluntariness of a confession will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. Chambers v. State, 742 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The evidence introduced at the suppression hearing refutes the Defendant’s claim that his confession to the Marathon robbery was the product of police intimidation. The Defendant’s videotaped confessions do not show any bruises…
Authorities Cited
- Traylor v. State, 596 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1992)
- Thompson v. State, 548 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1989)
- Reddish v. State, 167 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1964)
- Johnson v. State, 696 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1997)
- Butler v. State, 706 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Bonifay v. State, 626 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1993)
- Nelson v. State, 688 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Snipes v. State, 651 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)