Bronder v. State
This text of 929 So. 2d 615 (Bronder v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Stephen S. Bronder appeals the order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to raise, in the motion to suppress his statement to the police, that the Miranda1 rights warning which he was read was defective. He claimed no other inculpatory evidence was adduced at trial against him, and thus, the result of the trial would have been different had his statement been suppressed. He alleged that the version of the rights he was given was the same as the one held defective in President v. State, 884 So.2d 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), rev. denied sub nom. State v. West, 892 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 2005),2 and he attached to his motion, as an example, the Miranda rights waiver form which was signed by his co-defendant.3
As we have held before,4 this claim was legally sufficient. Accordingly, we reverse and remand either for the attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting the claim or for an evidentiary hearing.
Reversed and Remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
929 So. 2d 615, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 7149, 2006 WL 1235748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bronder-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.