Jones v. State

657 So. 2d 1190, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5633, 1995 WL 315705
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Jones v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 606 So. 2d 709
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 24, 1995·No. No. 93-849·Published

Opinion

ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

The state’s motion for rehearing is granted, this court’s opinion filed in this cause on March 22, 1995, is vacated, and the final judgments of conviction and sentences under review are affirmed. We reach this result based on a holding that the confession given by the defendant to the police in this case complied with the standards established in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and was otherwise freely and voluntarily given. Although the defendant has made a compelling case to the contrary and our original opinion in the cause concluded that the confession was obtained in violation of the Miranda standards, we agree with the state on rehearing that our prior decision in State v. Williams, 434 So.2d 967 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), is indistinguishable from the instant case and compels the conclusion that the confession herein was obtained in compliance with Miranda and was otherwise freely and voluntarily given.

Affirmed.

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

Jones v. State, 657 So. 2d 1190, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5633, 1995 WL 315705 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

657 So. 2d 1190 (Jones v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (Supreme Court, 1966)
State v. Williams
434 So. 2d 967 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)