M.H. v. State
Opinion
M.H. appeals his adjudication of delinquency on the ground that the juvenile [1390]*1390court erroneously admitted a statement he gave to the arresting officer. We affirm.
Appellant correctly contends that the Miranda warning given below was fatally deficient for failure to advise him that an attorney would be appointed if he could not afford one. Caso v. State, 524 So.2d 422, 423 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 178, 102 L.Ed.2d 147 (1988). As no timely objection was made below, the point is not preserved for our review. Thomas v. State, 249 So.2d 510, 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). For the same reason the contention that the juvenile’s statement was involuntary was not preserved. Blatch v. State, 216 So.2d 261, 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert, dismissed, 225 So.2d 532 (Fla.1969).1 Finally, having reviewed the record we are satisfied that admission of the statement, even if it had been erroneous, would at best be harmless error. See Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 691, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 2147, 90 L.Ed.2d 636, 646 (1986); Caso v. State, 524 So.2d at 425, 426; Blatch v. State, 216 So.2d at 264.
The adjudication of delinquency is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
538 So. 2d 1389 (M.H. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.