Case Name: Archie Nathaniel WEATHERSPOON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1976-03-10
Citations: 328 So. 2d 875
Docket Number: No. X-494
Parties: Archie Nathaniel WEATHERSPOON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: BOYER, C. J., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 328
Pages: 875–877

Head Matter:
Archie Nathaniel WEATHERSPOON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. X-494.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
March 10, 1976.
Rehearing Denied April 12, 1976.
S. Gunter Toney, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Michael M. Corin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
On this appeal from a judgment of conviction on two counts of robbery, to which appellant pleaded nolo contendere reserving the right to appeal, we are concerned with the admissibility in evidence of a confession obtained, after Miranda warnings were given, during appellant's detention for six hours between his arrest and his delivery, as a 17-year old juvenile, to the intake officer of a juvenile detention center.
The relevant facts are: Munford's Maj ik Market was robbed at 7:36 a. m. on August 14, 1974 by one McDaniel who was arrested at 8:00 o'clock and who implicated appellant. Appellant was taken into custody at approximately 10:30 a. m. on the same date. At 11:00 a. m. appellant's parents, grandmother and aunt arrived at the police station. Appellant's father identified himself and inquired about his son and was told that appellant was being held. Appellant was observed being escorted upstairs. The relatives remained in the lobby of the police department until 4:00 or 4:30 p. m. when finally allowed to speak with appellant. In the meantime, according to the testimony of one of the officers, that officer had gained knowledge between 2:30 o'clock and 3:00 o'clock p. m. that appellant was a juvenile. Thereafter, at .3:35 Pm. appellant confessed to the crimes charged against him.
In Florida, juveniles are afforded rights and considerations not available to adult offenders. (See Chapter 39, Florida Statutes) It is uncontradicted that on the date of the offenses here charged appellant was in fact a juvenile. The applicable laws were not observed by the state. The challenged confession was extracted while appellant's parents waited in frustration to see and talk to their son, and after at least one of the officers became aware of appellant's true age. That confession should not have been admitted.
Reversed.
BOYER, C. J., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge, concur.
SMITH, J., dissents.