Case Name: John Henry FIELDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-08-11
Citations: 402 So. 2d 46
Docket Number: No. NN-228
Parties: John Henry FIELDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: SHAW, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 402
Pages: 46–49

Head Matter:
John Henry FIELDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. NN-228.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Aug. 11, 1981.
Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, Gene S. Taylor, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Wallace E. All-britton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Opinion:
WENTWORTH, Judge.
On this appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence on a charge of robbery, we are now required to dispose of allegations of error independent of those treated in our initial opinion in this cause.
Appellant, a juvenile, challenges the denial of his motion to suppress uncounseled confessions and admissions obtained during a custodial detention and interrogation of approximately four hours. Although appellant expressly waived his Miranda rights, we conclude that his action cannot be regarded as a voluntary, intelligent, or knowing waiver, and the various confessions and admissions should have been suppressed.
Appellant was, in formal terms, repeatedly advised of and said that he understood his Miranda rights, but upon being asked if he wanted a lawyer his response was that "I can't afford to get one." Appellant's interrogators did not then or at anytime thereafter make any further statement or clarification regarding his right to counsel. The trial judge suppressed the confession which was given contemporaneously with the quoted statement, but did not suppress the various other confessions and admissions given prior and subsequent to the statement.
A court-appointed psychologist testified that appellant had a reduced mental ability involving a "visual perceptual disorder" with brain damage and attention span problems, and that he had the reading ability of a first-grade student. The doctor also testified that appellant "would have trouble" understanding his Miranda rights as they were read to him.
A Miranda waiver during custodial interrogation is valid only if it is a voluntary, intelligent, and knowing waiver. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); Tennell v. State, 348 So.2d 937 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). In determining whether a waiver is voluntary, intelligent, and knowing, the court must consider the totality of the circumstances, and while a juvenile may waive his Miranda rights, the state bears a "heavy burden" in establishing that the waiver is valid. Arnold v. State, 265 So.2d 64 (Fla.3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 272 So.2d 817 (Fla.1973). In the present case the testimony of the court-appointed psychologist and appellant's statement regarding his inability to afford an attorney show plainly that appellant did not intelligently comprehend the meaning of his Miranda rights to have counsel even if he could not afford the cost. The record also reflects false police assertions apparently calculated to delude appellant and destroy his resistance. We conclude that appellant has established that his waiver of Miranda rights was not a voluntary, intelligent, and knowing waiver, and the trial judge should accordingly have granted his motion to suppress the confessions and admissions in question.
The judgment and sentence appealed are reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
SHAW, J., concurs.
LARRY G. SMITH, J., specially concurs with opinion.
. After remand from the Supreme Court, State v. Fields, 394 So.2d 1015 (Fla.1981), reversing Fields v. State, 377 So.2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
. Appellant was told that he had been identified by a confidential informant and that his fingerprints had been found at the scene of the robbery. The record shows that neither statement was true.