Opinion ID: 1859587
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Suppression of Appellant's Pretrial Statements

Text: In his first issue, appellant claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to police on April 10, 11, and 12, 1995, arguing that the police officers elicited those statements in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. [11] Appellant bases this argument on the assertion that the officers continued to question him without a lawyer present despite the fact that he signed a written notice of invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel on April 4, 1995. After reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that appellant's executed written notice of constitutional rights dated April 4, 1995, was not an invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel in respect to this case. Moreover, we find that there is evidence in the record of the hearing on the motion to suppress that appellant requested to talk with Deputy Crone subsequent to April 4, 1995, and that in each contact with Deputy Crone, on April 10, 11, and 12, appellant was advised of his Miranda rights and that appellant waived those rights. The record reflects that appellant moved the trial court to suppress all of appellant's statements made after April 4, 1995, the date appellant signed a document purporting to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to counsel. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on March 18, 1996. Testifying at the hearing were appellant and Deputies Stanforth, Griner, and Crone. Appellant's contention centers upon a document which is entitled Notice of Defendant's Invocation of Constitutional Rights, which bears a date of April 4, 1995. This is a printed form of the Office of the Public Defender for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, of which Lee County is a part. It states in pertinent part: The undersigned Defendant having been advised that he/she has been arrested and charged with a crime, does hereby invoke the right to counsel and right to remain silent under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 2, 9, and 16 of the State of Florida Constitution and the case law thereunder. I desire to have my attorney, the Public Defender, or one of his assistants, present before and during any questioning, interrogation, interviewing or other conversation whatsoever between myself and any police agency, prosecutor or agents thereof whether local, State or Federal. I hereby announce my desire to have counsel present before anybody talks to me about any matters relating to this case or any other criminal matter in which I am a suspect or can reasonably be expected to become a suspect based on anything I might say. The document reflects a file stamp of the Felony Division, Clerk of Courts. The document contains a certification by an assistant public defender stating that a copy was furnished to John J. McDougall, Sheriff of Lee County, and Joseph P. D'Alessandro, State Attorney, on April 4, 1995. The exact circumstances under which this document was signed were not established in the record. [12] In argument to the trial court, defense counsel stated that his motion was based entirely upon State v. Guthrie, 666 So.2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). [13] The trial court denied the motion by order dated April 9, 1996. This Court subsequently disapproved Guthrie in Sapp v. State, 690 So.2d 581 (Fla.1997). In Sapp, this Court held that an accused may not effectively invoke the right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution or article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution until a custodial interrogation has begun or is imminent. In reaching our decision, we relied on McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 182 n. 3, 111 S.Ct. 2204, 115 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991), United States v. LaGrone, 43 F.3d 332 (7th Cir. 1994), Alston v. Redman, 34 F.3d 1237 (3d Cir.1994), and United States v. Wright, 962 F.2d 953 (9th Cir.1992). Subsequent to our decision in Sapp, the Eleventh Circuit reached a similar conclusion in United States v. Grimes 142 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 1998). We conclude that the facts of the instant case are analogous to the factual scenario presented in Sapp. Sapp was arrested on a charge of robbery. After his arrest, Sapp signed an invocation-of-rights form provided by the public defender while the public defender was explaining first appearance court procedures to several inmates. The rights form was substantially similar to the one present in the instant case. A week later, while still in jail, Sapp was taken to a police station, where he was questioned about a homicide unrelated to the robbery for which he was in custody. Sapp was read his Miranda rights, waived his rights, and proceeded to make a statement. Later, Sapp gave a second statement. The trial court denied Sapp's motion to suppress the statements he made regarding the homicide. Sapp was ultimately convicted of armed robbery and felony murder. This Court held that Sapp's signing of the form in respect to the robbery charge did not invoke his Fifth Amendment right to counsel in respect to the murder, stating: [T]he reason for informing individuals of their rights before questioning is to ensure that statements made during custodial interrogation are given voluntarily, not to prevent individuals from ever making these statements without first consulting counsel. Sapp, 690 So.2d at 586. The Court went on to state: A rule allowing one to invoke the right to counsel for custodial interrogation before it is even imminent (whether it be through a claim of rights form or by any other means) would provide little additional protection against involuntary confessions but would unnecessarily hinder lawful efforts by police to obtain voluntary confessions. Id. The circumstances of this case are also similar to those involved in Alston v. Redman, 34 F.3d 1237 (3d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1160, 115 S.Ct. 1122, 130 L.Ed.2d 1085 (1995), a case upon which this Court expressly relied in Sapp. Consistent with the holding and reasoning of Sapp, we find that appellant's execution of the invocation form dated April 4, 1995, incident to his custody on other charges, was insufficient to trigger his Fifth Amendment right to counsel in respect to the Galloway homicide because the form did not relate to interrogation which was being conducted or which was imminent in regard to the Galloway homicide. Rather, as in Sapp, the record supports the conclusion that the form related to the charges for which appellant had been extradited, was in custody, and had made court appearances. Moreover, the record supports the conclusion that, after executing the form, appellant requested to speak with the deputy in respect to the Galloway homicide and, when given an opportunity to request counsel, agreed to speak to the deputy without counsel. As in Sapp, the form signed by appellant appears to be one that is routinely provided by newly appointed counsel. Hence, under our holding in Sapp, we find no basis in this record to overturn the trial court's ruling.