State v. Martinez-Yanez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Martinez-Yanez

701 So. 2d 627, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 12549, 1997 WL 716847

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 7, 1997

DocketNo. 97-00396

StatusPublished

This text of 701 So. 2d 627 (State v. Martinez-Yanez) 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

State v. Martinez-Yanez, 701 So. 2d 627, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 12549, 1997 WL 716847 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.

The State appeals an order granting the suppression of certain statements made by Pedro Martinez-Yanez. The order was based on the then controlling cases of Fason v. State, 674 So.2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), and State v. Guthrie, 666 So.2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Subsequently, the Florida Supreme Court ruled to the contrary and disapproved Fason and Guthrie. See Sapp v. State, 690 So.2d 581 (Fla.1997) (holding that an accused may not effectively invoke the right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution or article I, section 9, of the Florida Constitution until custodial interrogation has begun or is imminent); State v. Guthrie, 692 So.2d 888 (Fla.1997); Cullen v. State, 699 So.2d 1009 (Fla.1997).

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s ruling as to the statement made by Martinez-Yanez on April 4, 1995. The State presents no argument regarding the suppression of Martinez-Yanez’s statement made on March 21, 1995. Therefore, as to the March 21, 1995, statement, we affirm the trial court’s ruling.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

FULMER, J., and MALONEY, DENNIS P., Associate Judge, concur.

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

BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.

The State appeals an order granting the suppression of certain statements made by Pedro Martinez-Yanez. The order was based on the then controlling cases of Fason v. State, 674 So.2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), and State v. Guthrie, 666 So.2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Subsequently, the Florida Supreme Court ruled to the contrary and disapproved Fason and Guthrie. See Sapp v. State, 690 So.2d 581 (Fla.1997) (holding that an accused may not effectively invoke the right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution or article I, section 9, of the Florida Constitution until custodial interrogation has begun or is imminent); State v. Guthrie, 692 So.2d 888 (Fla.1997); Cullen v. State, 699 So.2d 1009 (Fla.1997).

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s ruling as to the statement made by Martinez-Yanez on April 4, 1995. The State presents no argument regarding the suppression of Martinez-Yanez’s statement made on March 21, 1995. Therefore, as to the March 21, 1995, statement, we affirm the trial court’s ruling.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

FULMER, J., and MALONEY, DENNIS P., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

701 So. 2d 627, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 12549, 1997 WL 716847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-martinez-yanez-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack