Case Name: Reginald CLARK and Joe Lee Coley, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1968-02-27
Citations: 207 So. 2d 481
Docket Number: No. 66-1107
Parties: Reginald CLARK and Joe Lee Coley, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 207
Pages: 481–481

Head Matter:
Reginald CLARK and Joe Lee Coley, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 66-1107.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
Feb. 27, 1968.
Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender and Phillip A. Hubbart and Marvin J. Emory, Jr., Asst. Public Defenders, for appellants.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellants were found guilty and sentenced for robbery. On this appeal they present two points. The first applies to appellant Clark only and urges that he was deprived of his constitutional rights by the introduction of testimony as to a voluntary spontaneous statement by appellant Coley at the scene of the arrest. We hold that the admonition in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) has no application to this situation. See also Jones v. State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 574; Kinsey v. State, Fla.App.1967, 193 So.2d 437.
The second point urges that appellants were not adequately warned as required by Miranda v. State of Arizona, supra. The record reveals a full and adequate warning to the defendants by the arresting officer and in addition, reveals no custodial interrogation. See Biglow v. State, Fla.App.1967, 205 So.2d 547.
Affirmed.