Case Name: Baldwin DROUT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2011-08-03
Citations: 99 So. 3d 549
Docket Number: No. 3D10-563
Parties: Baldwin DROUT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before WELLS, C.J., and ROTHENBERG and SALTER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 99
Pages: 549–549

Head Matter:
Baldwin DROUT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 3D10-563.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Aug. 3, 2011.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Harvey J. Sepler, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heidi Milan Caballero, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before WELLS, C.J., and ROTHENBERG and SALTER, JJ.

Opinion:
ROTHENBERG, J.
The sole issue raised in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress his pre-Miranda statements. Because the record fully supports the trial court's finding that the statements were spontaneously uttered and not the product of the functional equivalent of a police interrogation, we affirm. See Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980); Rodriguez v. State, 906 So.2d 1082, 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA2004).
Affirmed.
. Miranda v. Atizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).