Opinion ID: 2014394
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to Advise of Constitutional Rights.

Text: The defendant contends that he was interrogated by the district attorney without first being advised of his constitutional rights. Although it seems the defendant had been advised of his rights at the time of his arrest, it does not clearly appear that the defendant was again instructed later in the day when he discussed the charge with the district attorney. . . . But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him. Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U. S. 436, 479, 86 Sup. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 10 A. L. R. 3d 974. (Emphasis supplied.) The prosecution never offered any evidence against the defendant. He was convicted on his own plea. Even assuming that the proper warnings were not given in a timely manner, the defendant has not been prejudiced. The trial court in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw the plea found that no manifest injustice occurred in either the proceedings or judgment of guilt based on the plea. The circuit court on appeal was of the opinion that no manifest injustice has been shown. We find nothing in this record which would require this court`to hold to the contrary as a matter of law. By the Court. Judgment affirmed.