Opinion ID: 1758677
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether Woodward's Confession Was Obtained in Violation of His Right Against Self-Incrimination, Because the Miranda Warnings Given to Him Placed the Burden of Obtaining Counsel on Him.

Text: Woodward claims that the following statement on the waiver form he signed before giving a confession prejudiced him: 7. A Lawyer will also be provided for you now, if you wish, whom you may call from the list of lawyers furnished. This statement followed these prior statements: 4. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions, and to have him with you during questioning, 5. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish, and 6. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time. You also have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to a lawyer. No reasonable person would believe Woodward's argument after reading this entire document. It clearly advises the defendant that he can refuse to answer questions without a lawyer present and that one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish. Woodward did not raise this issue on direct appeal, and therefore the waiver provisions § 99-39-21(1) (Supp. 1993) of the PCR Act apply as discussed in issue I.