Case Name: In the Interest of Floyd Steven HUSK, a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1974-10-22
Citations: 305 So. 2d 19
Docket Number: No. U-247
Parties: In the Interest of Floyd Steven HUSK, a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: RAWLS, C. J., and McCORD and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 305
Pages: 19–21

Head Matter:
In the Interest of Floyd Steven HUSK, a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. U-247.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Oct. 22, 1974.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 10, 1974.
Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and David J. Busch, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Andrew W. Lindsey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was charged with being a delinquent child in a petition for murder in the second degree and was adjudged to be a delinquent child under Ch. 39, Florida Statutes. One of appellant's three points on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his confession without making an express finding that it was voluntarily given. The record shows that after hearing appellant's motion to suppress the confession, the trial judge simply entered an order stating, "The child's motion to suppress the confession in this cause is denied."
The Supreme Court of Florida in McDole v. State, Fla., 283 So.2d 553 (1973), quoted from the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Sims v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 538, 87 S.Ct. 639, 17 L.Ed.2d 593 (1967) as follows:
" . . . It is not for the jury to make the primary determination of voluntariness. Although the judge need not make formal findings of fact or write an opinion, his conclusion that the confession is voluntary must appear from the record with unmistakable clarity."
The Florida Supreme Court went on to say:
"We do not believe that such 'unmistakable clarity' appears simply from the trial judge's statement that the motion to suppress the confessions is denied. The requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment is that the trial judge make a determination that the confession was freely and voluntarily given before he allows it to be considered by a jury. Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964). A specific finding of voluntariness is necessary to insure that a judge has properly met this requirement. . . "
While the case sub judice was a trial by the court without a jury, we do not find that such would abrogate the constitutional requirement that the judge's conclusion that the confession is voluntary appear from the record with unmistakable clarity.
In view of the foregoing, we will follow the pattern set by our sister court in Graham v. State, Fla.App. (3d), 292 So.2d 373, and for the purpose of disposing of the issue of the court's making an unequivocal and explicit finding of voluntariness, this court relinquishes jurisdiction and remands this case to the trial judge to consider and then rule explicitly on the volun-tariness of the defendant's confession with or without oral argument thereon as the trial judge shall choose, promptly after an order is made on the issue of voluntariness as herein provided for, counsel for the appellant shall file herein a certified copy of such order. Further proceedings taken by this court on this appeal shall be as indicated or required dependent upon the order which shall be made on the issue of an ex plicit finding of voluntariness of the defendant's confession.
It is so ordered.
RAWLS, C. J., and McCORD and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.