Salazar v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Salazar v. State

180 So. 3d 242, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 19209, 2015 WL 9319135

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 23, 2015

DocketNo. 3D12-1729

StatusPublished

This text of 180 So. 3d 242 (Salazar 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

Salazar v. State, 180 So. 3d 242, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 19209, 2015 WL 9319135 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Salazar appeals his conviction and sentence for first-degree murder and sexual battery of a child under twelve. We hold the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress statements made by Salazar. The question before the trial court was whether Salazar was “in custody” for Miranda purposes at the time the statements were made. The proper [243]*243inquiry is whether, under the totality of the circumstances,, “a reasonable , person placed in the same position would believe that his or her freedom of action was curtailed to a degree associated with actual arrest." Ramirez v. State, 739 So.2d 568, 573 (Fla.1999). Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that Salazar was not in custody or undergoing custodial interrogation at the time he made the relevant statements. We find no error in this determination. See Lorenzo v. State, 948 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Cotton v. State, 901 So.2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Ramsey v. State, 731 So.2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Wright v. State, 161 So.3d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).

We find no merit to {he other point raised on appeal by Salazar. Accordingly, we affirm Salazar’s conviction and sentence.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Salazar appeals his conviction and sentence for first-degree murder and sexual battery of a child under twelve. We hold the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress statements made by Salazar. The question before the trial court was whether Salazar was “in custody” for Miranda purposes at the time the statements were made. The proper [243]*243inquiry is whether, under the totality of the circumstances,, “a reasonable , person placed in the same position would believe that his or her freedom of action was curtailed to a degree associated with actual arrest." Ramirez v. State, 739 So.2d 568, 573 (Fla.1999). Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that Salazar was not in custody or undergoing custodial interrogation at the time he made the relevant statements. We find no error in this determination. See Lorenzo v. State, 948 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Cotton v. State, 901 So.2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Ramsey v. State, 731 So.2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Wright v. State, 161 So.3d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).

We find no merit to {he other point raised on appeal by Salazar. Accordingly, we affirm Salazar’s conviction and sentence.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 So. 3d 242, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 19209, 2015 WL 9319135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salazar-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack