San Martin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

San Martin v. State

59 So. 3d 1171, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3512, 2011 WL 904249

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 16, 2011

Docket3D09-628

StatusPublished

This text of 59 So. 3d 1171 (San Martin 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

San Martin v. State, 59 So. 3d 1171, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3512, 2011 WL 904249 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

On this appeal from convictions and a 30-year sentence with a 25-year min-man for attempted armed robbery and armed burglary, the sole issue challenges the admission of the defendant’s inculpato-ry statements to the police. Of the various grounds asserted, the only one which deserves discussion argues that the Miranda *1172 waiver, which was otherwise impeccably secured, was spoiled by the utterance, “S-t, nigga ain’t got one,” 1 stated while he was indicating his willingness to speak without counsel by initialing that provision of the standard waiver form. It was not.

In agreement with both sides, we take it from this comment that the defendant was reflecting his awareness of and perhaps displeasure with the fact that there was no attorney actually present when he waived his Miranda rights. It is established, however, that these rights do not include one to have a lawyer immediately available before questioning can begin. As the Supreme Court has stated, “Miranda does not require that attorneys be producible on call ... Miranda requires only that the police not question a suspect unless he waives his right to counsel,” [e.s.], which San Martin clearly did. See Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 204, 109 S.Ct. 2875, 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989); see also Everett v. State, 893 So.2d 1278, 1285 (Fla.2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 987, 125 S.Ct. 1865, 161 L.Ed.2d 747 (2005).

Affirmed.

1

. See Almeida v. State, 737 So.2d 520, 523 (Fla.1999), ce rt. denied, 528 U.S. 1182, 120 S.Ct. 1221, 145 L.Ed.2d 1121 (2000) ("Custodial utterances are extraordinarily rich in diversity. ... ”).

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

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

On this appeal from convictions and a 30-year sentence with a 25-year min-man for attempted armed robbery and armed burglary, the sole issue challenges the admission of the defendant’s inculpato-ry statements to the police. Of the various grounds asserted, the only one which deserves discussion argues that the Miranda *1172 waiver, which was otherwise impeccably secured, was spoiled by the utterance, “S-t, nigga ain’t got one,” 1 stated while he was indicating his willingness to speak without counsel by initialing that provision of the standard waiver form. It was not.

In agreement with both sides, we take it from this comment that the defendant was reflecting his awareness of and perhaps displeasure with the fact that there was no attorney actually present when he waived his Miranda rights. It is established, however, that these rights do not include one to have a lawyer immediately available before questioning can begin. As the Supreme Court has stated, “Miranda does not require that attorneys be producible on call ... Miranda requires only that the police not question a suspect unless he waives his right to counsel,” [e.s.], which San Martin clearly did. See Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 204, 109 S.Ct. 2875, 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989); see also Everett v. State, 893 So.2d 1278, 1285 (Fla.2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 987, 125 S.Ct. 1865, 161 L.Ed.2d 747 (2005).

Affirmed.

1

. See Almeida v. State, 737 So.2d 520, 523 (Fla.1999), ce rt. denied, 528 U.S. 1182, 120 S.Ct. 1221, 145 L.Ed.2d 1121 (2000) ("Custodial utterances are extraordinarily rich in diversity. ... ”).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 So. 3d 1171, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3512, 2011 WL 904249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/san-martin-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack