The State of Florida v. Edelberto Lainez

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 18, 2024·No. 3D2023-0755·Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed December 18, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D23-0755

Lower Tribunal No. F20-351

The State of Florida,

Appellant,

vs.

Edelberto Lainez,

Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lody Jean, Judge.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jennifer Thornton, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Traylor v. State, 596 So. 2d 957, 966 (Fla. 1992) (“Once a suspect has requested the help of a lawyer, no state agent can reinitiate

interrogation on any offense throughout the period of custody unless the lawyer is present[.]”); Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 104 (1975) (stating “that the admissibility of statements obtained after the person in custody has decided to remain silent depends under Miranda on whether his ‘right to cut off questioning’ was ‘scrupulously honored.’” (quoting Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 474, 479 (1966))).

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

The State of Florida v. Edelberto Lainez, (Fla. Ct. App. 2024).

The State of Florida v. Edelberto Lainez (The State of Florida v. Edelberto Lainez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (Supreme Court, 1966)
Michigan v. Mosley
423 U.S. 96 (Supreme Court, 1975)
Traylor v. State
596 So. 2d 957 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)