Opinion ID: 4160071
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: McMillian’s Statement to Law Enforcement

Text: McMillian raises three challenges involving an inculpatory statement he made to law enforcement when he was still hospitalized from a shootout with police after the murder. Specifically, he claims that trial counsel was ineffective for the following: (1) failing to file a more comprehensive motion to suppress and failing to present witnesses to explain McMillian’s medical condition at the time his statements were made; (2) failing to argue at the suppression hearing that, because law enforcement violated the right to counsel that had attached to the attempted second-degree murder charge related to the shootout with police, the entire statement should have been suppressed; and (3) failing to move to redact statements made by law enforcement during their recorded interview of McMillian, which was played for the jury at trial. However, we affirm the trial court’s denial of these claims. On the day of the shootout on January 14, 2009, and while McMillian was still hospitalized at Shands Hospital in Florida, the public defender’s office was appointed to represent McMillian for the attempted second-degree murder charge relating to the shootout. On numerous occasions, investigators from the public defender’s office and law enforcement were turned away when they attempted to have contact with McMillian at the hospital because McMillian was unconscious. On January 29, 2009, Detectives Wolcott and McLean were allowed to visit - 11 - McMillian at the hospital for purposes of conducting an interview. Subsequently, McMillian was arrested on February 2, 2009, for the murder of Danielle Stubbs. Before trial, counsel filed a motion to suppress McMillian’s statements that the detectives obtained at the hospital, and the trial court denied the motion after holding a hearing during which both detectives testified. Then, prior to the State’s introducing the recorded statement during Detective Wolcott’s testimony at trial, counsel renewed his motion to suppress the statements McMillian made during the recorded interview, but the trial court denied counsel’s renewed motion. (1) Motion to Suppress and Evidence of McMillian’s Medical Condition at the Time of the Statement Regarding his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file and present a more comprehensive motion to suppress by failing to present witnesses to explain McMillian’s medical condition at the time his statements were made, McMillian has failed to demonstrate deficiency. Although McMillian argues that trial counsel should have presented additional witnesses, such as doctors or nurses, the record demonstrates that trial counsel did present information regarding McMillian’s injuries, hospitalization, and medication usage. See Patterson v. State, 513 So. 2d 1257, 1260 (Fla. 1987) (holding that even though the defendant was in a weakened physical condition, the confession was voluntarily given because there were no threats of violence and the detective read Patterson his - 12 - Miranda rights and Patterson indicated that he understood his rights and signed a waiver of rights form). Moreover, McMillian has failed to demonstrate prejudice. Given the nature and extent of the evidence presented at trial proving McMillian’s guilt, such as the fact that his firearm was used to kill Danielle Stubbs, the fact that his vehicle was seen at Danielle Stubbs’ home hours before her death, the fact that he was the last person with her, and the testimony that Danielle Stubbs had just ended their relationship, there is not a reasonable probability that absent trial counsel’s failure to have McMillian’s statements to law enforcement suppressed, there would have been a different result. See Henry, 948 So. 2d at 617. In other words, confidence in the outcome is not undermined. (2) Right to Counsel Next, McMillian submits that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue at the suppression hearing that, because law enforcement violated the right to counsel that had attached to the attempted second-degree murder charge, the entire statement should have been suppressed. However, trial counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless basis to suppress McMillian’s confession. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to have counsel present at all “critical” stages of the criminal proceedings, including police questioning. Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778, 786 (2009) (quoting United - 13 - States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 227 (1967)). However, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific. McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 175 (1991). “It cannot be invoked once for all future prosecutions, for it does not attach until a prosecution is commenced, that is, ‘at or after the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings—whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.’ ” Id. (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689 (1972)). In Owen v. State, 596 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 1992), this Court discussed the right to counsel when more than one offense is involved. After the body of the victim Georgianna Worden was discovered, “Owen was arrested the following day on unrelated charges . . . .” Id. at 986. He was interrogated over the next several weeks and eventually confessed to the murder of Worden. Id. This Court discussed that Owen’s right to counsel had attached and been invoked on the initial charges by the time of his first appearance on the initial charges, but this fact was “unrelated to his rights concerning the Worden murder.” Id. at 989. Specifically, “[h]is rights on the murder charge attached when he attended first appearance on that offense.” Id. Therefore, this Court held that “[b]ecause the questioning session during which he confessed took place prior to this first appearance [for the murder charge], Owen had no Sixth Amendment right to counsel at that time.” Id. - 14 - Moreover, the right to counsel “may be waived by a defendant, so long as relinquishment of the right is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.” Montejo, 556 U.S. at 786. “The defendant may waive the right whether or not he is already represented by counsel; the decision to waive need not itself be counseled.” Id. Furthermore, “[w]hen a court appoints counsel for an indigent defendant in the absence of any request on his part, there is no basis for a presumption that any subsequent waiver of the right to counsel will be involuntary.” Id. at 789. In this case, the right to counsel had only attached to the attempted seconddegree murder charge. The court appointed counsel to represent McMillian for the attempted second-degree murder charge on January 14, 2009, the day of the shootout with police. The detectives’ interview with McMillian took place on January 29, 2009, but McMillian was not arrested for Danielle Stubbs’ murder until February 2, 2009. Accordingly, because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific, the right to counsel had only attached to the charge of attempted second-degree murder at the time of the interview. See McNeil, 501 U.S. at 175. Moreover, McMillian waived his right to have counsel present during the detectives’ questioning on January 29, 2009, when he was still in the hospital. Before the detectives began the interview, the charge nurse advised the detectives that McMillian was just taking Motrin, and McMillian confirmed this himself. - 15 - Additionally, the detectives testified at the suppression hearing that McMillian had a calm demeanor, was able to communicate, they could understand each other, the detectives did not threaten or make any promises to McMillian for his statements, and McMillian indicated that he understood his Miranda rights and signed a waiver of rights form. As the trial court concluded in denying trial counsel’s motion to suppress, considering the totality of the circumstances, this was a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights. See Montejo, 556 U.S. at 789 (holding that when court appoints counsel, there is no presumption that any subsequent waiver of right to have counsel present during interrogation is invalid). Accordingly, because McMillian’s claim is without merit, counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise it. See Melendez v. State, 612 So. 2d 1366, 1369 (Fla. 1992) (“Counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to make this meritless argument.”), receded from on other grounds by Deren v. State, 985 So. 2d 1087, 1088 (Fla. 2008). (3) Failure to Redact Law Enforcement’s Statements Finally, McMillian claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to redact statements made by law enforcement during their recorded interview of McMillian, which was played for the jury at trial. This Court has recognized that a jury may hear an interrogating detective’s statements about a crime when they provoke a relevant response from the defendant being questioned. - 16 - See Jackson v. State, 18 So. 3d 1016, 1032 (Fla. 2009) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a recorded interview in its entirety in which a law enforcement officer related statements allegedly made by a codefendant, because the officer’s statements were made solely to provoke a reaction from the defendant); see also Eugene v. State, 53 So. 3d 1104, 1111-12 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the jury to hear four statements by the interrogating detectives placed in the context of the entirety of the interrogation). Such statements may be heard by the jury to “give context to the interview.” McWatters v. State, 36 So. 3d 613, 638 (Fla. 2010). When placed in “their proper context,” an interrogating detective’s statements to a suspect could be understood by a “rational jury” to be “techniques” used by law enforcement officers to secure confessions. Id. (quoting Worden v. State, 603 So. 2d 581, 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)). Here, McMillian has failed to demonstrate deficiency. At the evidentiary hearing, trial counsel pointed to detectives’ comments from the interview which were beneficial to McMillian, such as, “you’re not a bad guy.” Trial counsel testified that based on his experience, he did not feel that the statements at issue required redaction because some of the statements were beneficial. Moreover, the jury could hear the detectives’ statements in this recording to give context to their interview with McMillian. See McWatters, 36 So. 3d at 638. - 17 - McMillian has also failed to demonstrate prejudice. The comments at issue included established facts, such as comments about McMillian and Danielle Stubbs breaking up and McMillian’s plans to go back to Georgia, and other comments that were beneficial to McMillian. Accordingly, considering the entire recorded interview that was played to the jury, McMillian has failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that playing a redacted recording of McMillian’s confession to the jury would have led to a different result. See Henry, 948 So. 2d at 617. In other words, confidence in the outcome is not undermined. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of relief for these claims.