Invocation Of Right To Counsel

164 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Holland v. State
  813 So. 2d 1007· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-03-20 ·cited 4×
  Gordon Holland appealed his murder conviction, arguing that his confessions to Florida detectives should have been suppressed because he had invoked his right to counsel under the Canadian Charter while detained in Canada. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed his convicti
• United States v. Uribe-Galindo
  990 F.2d 522· 10th Cir.· 1993-03-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the examination of the vehicle's undercarriage with an auto creeper was a routine border search requiring no reasonable suspicion, and that the appellant's question about future access to an attorney did not constitute an invocation of his right to counsel.
• Wilson v. State
  573 So. 2d 77· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-12-28 ·cited 4×
  David Anthony Wilson appealed his convictions for three counts of burglary, two counts of grand theft, and one count of petit theft, arguing that his confessions should have been suppressed because they were involuntary and obtained in violation of his right to counsel. The Flori
• Butler v. Aiken
  864 F.2d 24· 4th Cir.· 1988-12-02 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge believes the defendant's conviction was obtained in violation of constitutional law and that he is entitled to habeas relief.
• State v. Hale
  505 So. 2d 1109· Fla. 5th DCA· 1987-04-16 ·cited 4×
  Florida appeals the trial court's suppression of Hale's statements made to a booking clerk who allegedly violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.111(c) by failing to immediately contact counsel. The appellate court reverses, holding that the procedural violation alone does
• Bradburn v. O.L. McCOTTER
  786 F.2d 627· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-28 ·cited 4×
  The state waived its exhaustion defense by not raising it in the district court, and the petitioner's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was not violated by police questioning.
• Bailey v. M.C. Hamby
  744 F.2d 24· 6th Cir.· 1984-09-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the defendant's confession was obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights after he invoked his right to counsel, its admission was harmless error given the strength of other evidence.
• United States v. Lame
  716 F.2d 515· 8th Cir.· 1983-08-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment was valid, the defendant's statement to FBI agents was admissible, and evidence of his chronic alcoholism was irrelevant.
• State v. Parker
  144 So. 3d 700· Fla. 1st DCA· 2014-08-22 ·cited 3×
  The State appeals the trial court's order suppressing Michael Parker's recorded police interview in a burglary and sexual battery case. The appellate court reverses, holding that the detective properly responded to Parker's prefatory questions about counsel and did not violate Mi
• United States v. Kelsey
  951 F.2d 1196· 10th Cir.· 1991-12-20 ·cited 3×
  Statements made by a suspect after invoking the right to counsel and before counsel is made available are inadmissible if the police initiated further interrogation, even if Miranda warnings were later given and a waiver executed.
• Bartlett v. T.L. Allen
  724 F.2d 1524· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-16 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a defendant's subsequent, informed confession, made after consulting with counsel, waives any prior Fifth Amendment rights violated by continued interrogation after requesting an attorney.
• State v. Lantz
  237 So. 3d 1168· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-02-23 ·cited 2×
  The State appeals a trial court order suppressing incriminating statements made by Justin Lantz after he invoked his right to counsel while in police custody for his mother's murder. The court reverses in part, holding that statements volunteered by Lantz without police interroga
• Simon v. State
  216 So. 3d 720· Fla. 4th DCA· 2017-04-12 ·cited 2×
  The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress statements made after invoking his right to counsel, nor in denying his request for an independent act instruction.
• Funesvalle v. State
  133 So. 3d 1001· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-12-11 ·cited 2×
  Ricardo Funesvalle was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements made to detectives and in giving a principals instruction. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed his convictions, ho
• Clark v. State
  780 So. 2d 184· Fla. 3d DCA· 2001-01-31 ·cited 2×
  Courtney Clark was convicted of second-degree murder for his role in a drive-by shooting that killed an innocent bystander. On appeal, Clark challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress a statement he made to a detective after receiving Miranda warnings, arguing
• United States v. March
  999 F.2d 456· 10th Cir.· 1993-07-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's confession was admissible, the jury instruction error was harmless, and the denial of a sentence reduction was not clearly erroneous. The Judgment and Commitment Order contained a clerical error requiring correction.
• United States v. Cannon
  981 F.2d 785· 5th Cir.· 1993-01-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the record was inadequately developed to determine if statements made after invoking the right to counsel were admissible under Edwards v. Arizona, and thus vacated the conviction and remanded for fact-finding.
• United States v. Martinez
  972 F.2d 1100· 9th Cir.· 1992-08-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's confession should be suppressed because his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, invoked on the state charge, was violated when he was questioned by federal authorities about the same offense without counsel.
• Anderson v. State
  487 So. 2d 85· Fla. 2d DCA· 1986-04-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that confessions obtained after a suspect invoked their right to counsel are inadmissible, even if Miranda warnings were re-given.
• Smith v. State
  411 So. 3d 487· Fla. 3d DCA· 2025-03-05 ·cited 1×
  Cecil Laurey Smith appeals his conviction for drug trafficking and related offenses, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress incriminating statements and confession. The Third District Court of Appeal affirms, holding that Smith's utterance about contacting
• N. J. O. v. State
  292 So. 3d 491· Fla. 2d DCA· 2020-02-28 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court reviewed a juvenile's conviction for attempted robbery. The court found that the juvenile's statements to police should have been suppressed because he invoked his right to counsel, and the admission of these statements was not harmless error, leading to a rev
• Wilson v. State
  274 So. 3d 549· Fla. 5th DCA· 2019-06-21 ·cited 1×
  Although police violated Miranda by reinterrogating Wilson after he invoked his right to counsel while remaining in custody, the erroneous admission of his second interview was harmless error because independent evidence established the same facts and the jury had other evidence
• Antonnine Scotsman v. State
  238 So. 3d 300· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-02-21 ·cited 1×
  Antonnine Scotsman appeals his convictions for three counts of armed robbery and one count of aggravated assault, challenging the admissibility of his confession obtained after he invoked his right to counsel. The court agrees that detectives violated his Miranda rights by contin
• State v. Gonzalo Rafael Venegas
  79 So. 3d 912· Fla. 2d DCA· 2012-02-17 ·cited 1×
  Florida appealed the suppression of a custodial statement made by Venegas after he invoked his right to counsel, while Venegas cross-appealed the denial of suppression for a knife obtained based on that statement. The court affirmed suppression of the statement but reversed and r
• Williams v. State
  38 So. 3d 188· Fla. 5th DCA· 2010-05-28 ·cited 1×
  Anthony Williams was convicted of first-degree felony murder and armed burglary after police obtained a recorded statement from him at Rikers Island jail without notifying his court-appointed counsel. Williams argued the statement should be suppressed under the Sixth Amendment an
• United States v. Grimes
  911 F. Supp. 1485· M.D. Fla.· 1996-01-02 ·cited 1×
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny the motion to suppress, finding that the defendant was not in custody during the period in question and that his Sixth Amendment rights were offense-specific.
• Lilly v. Gilmore
  988 F.2d 783· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-17 ·cited 1×
  The court held that appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a Miranda claim that was not clearly supported by precedent at the time, nor for failing to appeal the exclusion of speculative evidence.
• Oglesby v. United State of Am.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-14
  The court held that the petitioner failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel on any of his claims, and therefore, his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence must be denied.
• Green v. State
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2024-11-27
  Isaac Green challenged the denial of his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, claiming his trial counsel was ineffective. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's summary denial, holding that Green failed to demonstrate his counsel was ineffective bec
• Sivik v. State
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-04-09
  Cory Barrant Sivik sought federal habeas relief challenging his state conviction for lewd or lascivious molestation of a child under twelve, arguing that statements he made during a police-orchestrated controlled telephone call violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The d
• State v. Blocker
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2023-04-26
  The State appealed a trial court's order suppressing statements made by Daniel Blocker after a motor vehicle accident. The appellate court reversed, holding that Blocker was not in custody for Miranda purposes and that the accident report privilege did not apply to the statements
• Bowen v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Hillsborough County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-03-03
  A Florida court convicted Bowen of armed burglary and grand theft, sentencing him to life imprisonment, and he subsequently filed a federal habeas petition challenging his conviction and raising claims of illegal arrest, Miranda violations, improper jury instructions, and ineffec
• Moak v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-02-07
  Thomas Moak, a Florida prisoner sentenced to three consecutive life sentences for murdering his father, mother, and sister, filed a federal habeas petition challenging his convictions on multiple grounds, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and challenges to evi
• Zink v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Polk County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-01-27
  The court held that Zink waived his claims by pleading guilty and that his statements were admissible under Miranda, as his reference to a lawyer was equivocal and he impliedly waived his rights.
• Penna v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2021-12-22
  After a suspect invokes Miranda rights and later reinitiates communication with police, law enforcement must specifically re-read the suspect's Miranda rights before asking questions reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses. A statement-by-statement analysis must be ap
• Rodriguez v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Hillsborough County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-09-07
  The court held that the state court did not unreasonably apply federal law or make unreasonable factual determinations regarding the suppression of statements and the admission of testimony challenged under the Confrontation Clause.
• King v. Carlton
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-05-03
  The court held that a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is not the proper vehicle for claims seeking monetary relief for alleged violations of constitutional rights and conditions of confinement.
• Markeil Deshon Thomas v. State
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2021-02-09
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a postconviction motion. The appellant argued his counsel was ineffective for failing to suppress statements made during police interviews and for not calling his mother as a witness, but the court found he was not in custo
• v. I.D. No. 1909016237 Jeffrey King
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2021-01-21
  The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motions to suppress. The Search Warrant and Buccal Swabbing Motions were denied, finding sufficient probable cause and no violation of privacy rights. The Miranda Motion was granted in part, suppressing statements made
• State v. Bishop
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-07-15
  Although trial counsel's failure to exclude evidence of the defendant's custodial request for counsel may have constituted deficient performance, the defendant failed to establish prejudice because overwhelming evidence of premeditation, planning, and intent to kill made it unrea
• Cooley v. State
  273 So. 3d 258· Fla. 1st DCA· 2019-05-28
  Even assuming a Miranda violation occurred during the defendant's custodial interview with a child protective investigator, the error was harmless beyond reasonable doubt because the remaining evidence was extensive, consistent, and the most damaging statements from the interview
• Zedric Joseph v. State
  259 So. 3d 123· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-11-14
  A suspect's ambiguous statements about possibly getting a lawyer—such as thinking out loud about "maybe" retaining counsel—do not constitute an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel requiring cessation of interrogation. The detective's honest response that she could not
• State v. Pullen
  181 So. 3d 568· Fla. 5th DCA· 2015-12-18
  The State appealed an order suppressing Pullen's self-incriminating statements about sexual contact with a minor based on alleged Miranda violations. The court reversed, holding that Miranda warnings are not required absent both custodial detention and interrogation.
• J.X. v. State
  125 So. 3d 364· Fla. 3d DCA· 2013-11-13
  A 17-year-old juvenile, J.X., was arrested after confessing to burglaries following a police interrogation. J.X. appeals the denial of his motion to suppress his statements, arguing that Detective Henriquez violated his Miranda rights and right to counsel. The court affirms, find
• Gustin v. State
  125 So. 3d 1025· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-07-10
  Florida appellate court affirmed conviction and sentence, rejecting challenges to information amendment, suppression of statement, and judgment of acquittal.
• United States v. Brye
  1990 WL 168164· M.D. Fla.· 2013-03-28
  The court held that a district court of incarceration lacks the jurisdictional authority to order another coequal district court to resentence a defendant.
• Hebron v. State
  85 So. 3d 530· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-04-04
  The court held that the defendant's consent to search was invalid because officers failed to provide a simple and straightforward answer to his clear question about his right to counsel during custodial interrogation.
• J.Q. v. State
  41 So. 3d 991· Fla. 3d DCA· 2010-08-04
  A juvenile appeals a delinquency finding, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements made after police showed him cocaine without Miranda warnings. The appellate court affirmed, holding that displaying the contraband in response to the juvenile's o
• Newman v. State
  937 So. 2d 1290· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-10-04
  The court held that a defendant's equivocal statement about not affording an attorney does not automatically vitiate a prior valid Miranda waiver or constitute an invocation of counsel.
• State v. Joiner
  682 So. 2d 704· Fla. 5th DCA· 1996-11-15
  The State appeals the trial court's suppression of police officer testimony regarding incriminating admissions made by the defendant. The court held that a witness's lack of credibility is not a proper basis for suppressing relevant testimony, and that less drastic measures were