Errico v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Errico v. State

608 So. 2d 930, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11669, 1992 WL 336015

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 18, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1106

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 608 So. 2d 930 (Errico 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.

Bluebook

Errico v. State, 608 So. 2d 930, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11669, 1992 WL 336015 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. In London the appellant, a United States citizen, was taken into custody and questioned by airport authorities and Scotland Yard detectives. He contends that several of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated in the course of his interrogation. Upon a review of the record, we find no error in the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress. United States v. Mitro, 880 F.2d 1480 (1st Cir. 1989); United States v. Rosenthal, 793 F.2d 1214, opinion modified, 801 F.2d 378 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 919, 107 S.Ct. 1377, 94 L.Ed.2d 692 (1987); United States v. Martindale, 790 F.2d 1129 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 855, 107 S.Ct. 193, 93 L.Ed.2d 125 (1986); United States v. Covington, 783 F.2d 1052 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 831, 107 S.Ct. 117, 93 L.Ed.2d 64 (1986); United States v. Morrow, 537 F.2d 120, reh’g. denied, 541 F.2d 282 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 956, 97 S.Ct. 1602, 51 L.Ed.2d 806 (1977); United States v. Molina-Chacon, 627 F.Supp. 1253 (E.D.N.Y.1986).

We also find no error in the admission of evidence concerning appellant’s statements made to a codefendant during the time they [931]*931were held in nearby cells while awaiting trial. There is no evidence of any advance arrangement between the authorities and the codefendant or of any state action designed to elicit incriminating statements from appellant. See Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 106 S.Ct. 2616, 91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1986). Even though he questioned the “coincidence” of his being placed in the same maximum security “pod,” as his code-fendant, the appellant has not demonstrated a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights as set forth in Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 106 S.Ct. 477, 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) and United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980). Additionally, we find no violation of appellant’s Sixth Amendment rights during voir dire. Sanchez-Velasco v. State, 570 So.2d 908 (Fla.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2045, 114 L.Ed.2d 129 (1991).

GUNTHER and STONE, JJ„ and MOE, LEROY H., Associate Judge, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. In London the appellant, a United States citizen, was taken into custody and questioned by airport authorities and Scotland Yard detectives. He contends that several of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated in the course of his interrogation. Upon a review of the record, we find no error in the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress. United States v. Mitro, 880 F.2d 1480 (1st Cir. 1989); United States v. Rosenthal, 793 F.2d 1214, opinion modified, 801 F.2d 378 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 919, 107 S.Ct. 1377, 94 L.Ed.2d 692 (1987); United States v. Martindale, 790 F.2d 1129 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 855, 107 S.Ct. 193, 93 L.Ed.2d 125 (1986); United States v. Covington, 783 F.2d 1052 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 831, 107 S.Ct. 117, 93 L.Ed.2d 64 (1986); United States v. Morrow, 537 F.2d 120, reh’g. denied, 541 F.2d 282 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 956, 97 S.Ct. 1602, 51 L.Ed.2d 806 (1977); United States v. Molina-Chacon, 627 F.Supp. 1253 (E.D.N.Y.1986).

We also find no error in the admission of evidence concerning appellant’s statements made to a codefendant during the time they [931]*931were held in nearby cells while awaiting trial. There is no evidence of any advance arrangement between the authorities and the codefendant or of any state action designed to elicit incriminating statements from appellant. See Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 106 S.Ct. 2616, 91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1986). Even though he questioned the “coincidence” of his being placed in the same maximum security “pod,” as his code-fendant, the appellant has not demonstrated a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights as set forth in Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 106 S.Ct. 477, 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) and United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980). Additionally, we find no violation of appellant’s Sixth Amendment rights during voir dire. Sanchez-Velasco v. State, 570 So.2d 908 (Fla.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2045, 114 L.Ed.2d 129 (1991).

GUNTHER and STONE, JJ„ and MOE, LEROY H., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

608 So. 2d 930, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11669, 1992 WL 336015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/errico-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack