Case Title: Nickulis Gillis v. State Of Florida

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC06-1207

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2007-05-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
____________ 
____________ 
Supreme Court of Florida  
No. SC06-1207 
NICKULIS GILLIS, 
Petitioner, 
vs. 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Respondent. 
[May 31, 2007] 
PER CURIAM. 
We initially accepted review of the decision in Gillis v. State, 930 So. 2d 
802 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), based on alleged express and direct conflict with Ripley 
v. State, 898 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), and West v. State, 876 So. 2d 614 
(Fla. 4th DCA 2004).  Upon further consideration we conclude that jurisdiction 
was improvidently granted, because these cases are factually distinguishable.  The 
Miami-Dade Police Department’s Miranda1 rights form at issue in Gillis is 
substantially and materially different from the Broward County Sheriff’s Office’s 
1.  Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 438 (1966).  
Miranda rights form at issue in Ripley and West.2  Accordingly, we hereby 
discharge jurisdiction and dismiss this review proceeding. 
It is so ordered. 
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, and CANTERO, 
JJ., concur.  
BELL, J., dissents with an opinion.  
NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED.  
BELL, J., dissenting. 
I respectfully dissent to the discharge of this case.  I agree that the Miranda 
forms are substantially different.  However, I do not believe that this difference is 
material to the express holdings in the cases.  In other words, this factual 
distinction does not negate the express and direct conflict between the holding in 
Gillis and the holdings in Ripley and West.  There is interdistrict conflict 
concerning whether Miranda requires that an accused be advised that he or she 
may terminate questioning at any time.  See Gillis, 930 So. 2d at 806 (holding that 
the Miranda rights form was not legally inadequate and that Gillis was properly 
advised of his rights “because the Miranda form used informs the accused that 
he/she does not have to answer any questions posed by the officer, [and] implicit in 
2.  The text of the Broward County Sheriff’s Office’s Miranda rights form at 
issue in Ripley and West is found in Roberts v. State, 874 So. 2d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 
4th DCA 2004).  Compare Gillis, 930 So. 2d at 805-06, with Roberts, 874 So. 2d at 
1226. 
- 2 ­
this warning is the fact that the accused may invoke his right to remain silent at any 
time during the interrogation or to terminate further questioning during the 
interrogation”); but see Ripley, 898 So. 2d at 1081 (holding that Miranda rights 
form was legally inadequate in part because the Miranda warning “did not advise 
Ripley. . . that he could stop the interrogation at any time during questioning”); 
West, 876 So. 2d at 616 (holding that appellant’s confession should be suppressed, 
in part, because the Miranda rights form was inadequate to inform the appellant 
“that she could stop the interrogation at any time”).  The decisions from the Fourth 
District also expressly and directly conflict with this Court’s decision in Brown v. 
State, 565 So. 2d 304, 306 (Fla. 1990) (holding, in part, that the Miranda rights 
form was legally sufficient although it did not mention the right to terminate 
questioning, because “[t]he right to cut off questioning is implicit in the litany of 
rights which Miranda requires to be given to a person being questioned [but] is not 
. . . among those that must be specifically communicated to such a person”), 
abrogated on other grounds by Jackson v. State, 648 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1994).  Given 
this clear decisional conflict, I would retain jurisdiction and decide this important 
issue.      
- 3 ­
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Direct 
Conflict 
Third District - Case No. 3D04-2340
 
(Dade County) 
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida, 
and Dorothy F. Easley, Special Assistant Public Defender, Coral Gables, Florida,
 
for Petitioner 
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, Richard L. Polin, Bureau 
Chief, and Maria T. Armas, Assistant Attorney General, Miami, Florida,
 
for Respondent 
- 4 ­