Case Name: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Jesse STATEWRIGHT, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1974-05-15
Citations: 300 So. 2d 674
Docket Number: No. 44047
Parties: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Jesse STATEWRIGHT, Respondent.
Judges: ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 300
Pages: 674–679

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Jesse STATEWRIGHT, Respondent.
No. 44047.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 15, 1974.
On Rehearing July 26, 1974.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 17, 1974.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Richard S. Power and Edward H. Fine, Asst. Public Defenders, for respondent.

Opinion:
CARLTON (Retired), Justice:
We issued a writ of certiorari in this cause, and heard oral argument, based upon an asserted conflict between the decision sought to be reviewed and State v. Craig, 237 So.2d 737 (Fla.1970).
In the case sub judice, reported at 278 So.2d 652, the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reversed on two grounds appellee's conviction of first degree murder. One of these grounds was that the admission into evidence of oral and written statements made by the appellee was error, since the pre-interrogation warnings given the appellee were insufficient to clearly inform him of his right to counsel during interrogation. The decision of the District Court on this point was based upon the following statement of law quoted from Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966):
" ' . . . an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him dtwing interrogation under the system for protecting the privilege we delineate. [T]his warning is an absolute prerequisite to interrogation. No amount of circumstantial evidence that the person may have been aware of this right will suffice to stand in its stead. Only through such a warning is there ascertainable assurance that the accused was aware of this right.' Miranda v. Arizona, supra at 471-472, 86 S.Ct. at 1626." (Emphasis supplied.)
At the interrogation of respondent he was advised that he did not have to say anything; that anything he said could be used against him in a court of law; that he would not be mistreated in any way or promised anything to get him to make a statement; and that he had a right to an attorney and if he did not have one, the State would furnish him with one at no cost to him. There was no specific warning that respondent could have counsel present during interrogation as a literal reading of Miranda would require, and this was the basis for the district court's reversal.
The trouble with the district court's holding is that the above-outlined interrogation of the respondent occurred PRIOR to Miranda. No matter what the subsequent requirements may be, the ruling in Miranda has been expressly held NOT to be retroactive. Johnson v. N. J., 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966); Jenkins v. Delaware, 395 U.S. 213, 89 S. Ct. 1677, 23 L.Ed.2d 253 (1969).
Conflict accordingly appears with earlier pre-Miranda holdings which did not require the specific warning of availability of counsel during interrogation upon which the district opinion was based. We recognize that State v. Craig, supra, might be distinguished because of possibly differing circumstances but the legion of cases not requiring warning before this decision in Miranda give the basis for conflict and, together with the above-cited U.S. Supreme Court holdings, require that the district's opinion be quashed.
The district court opinion is accordingly quashed and the cause is remanded for reinstatement of the trial court's judgment of conviction and sentence.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
. See, for instance, Davis v. State, 90 Fla. 317, 105 So. 843 (1925); Cawthon v. State, 118 Fla. 394, 159 So. 366 (1935); Brown v. State, 135 Fla. 30, 184 So. 518 (1938).