Pelham v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pelham v. State

334 So. 2d 175, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14617

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 11, 1976

DocketNo. 75-1619

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 334 So. 2d 175 (Pelham 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

Pelham v. State, 334 So. 2d 175, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14617 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

BERANEK, JOHN R., Associate Judge.

Defendant was convicted of possession of a stolen motor vehicle and appeals. We reverse. Defendant raises four points. We find it necessary to comment only upon one point which relates to the standards set forth in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966). Defendant was taken into custody and questioned regarding his possession of an automobile that police suspected of being stolen. While in the custody of and under interrogation by police defendant admitted guilt. No Miranda warning or any other warning was given until the actual arrest was made. We find that the admission into evidence of defendant’s admission of guilt was error. This was clearly a statement in response to a custodial interrogation without any warning or advice regarding applicable constitutional rights. The court should have excluded defendant’s admissions. The judgment is vacated.

WALDEN, C. J., and ALDERMAN, J., concur.

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

BERANEK, JOHN R., Associate Judge.

Defendant was convicted of possession of a stolen motor vehicle and appeals. We reverse. Defendant raises four points. We find it necessary to comment only upon one point which relates to the standards set forth in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966). Defendant was taken into custody and questioned regarding his possession of an automobile that police suspected of being stolen. While in the custody of and under interrogation by police defendant admitted guilt. No Miranda warning or any other warning was given until the actual arrest was made. We find that the admission into evidence of defendant’s admission of guilt was error. This was clearly a statement in response to a custodial interrogation without any warning or advice regarding applicable constitutional rights. The court should have excluded defendant’s admissions. The judgment is vacated.

WALDEN, C. J., and ALDERMAN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

334 So. 2d 175, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pelham-v-state-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack