Opinion ID: 1094862
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Cole's Confession

Text: The target of this claim is Cole's alleged mental retardation, i.e., his low intelligence level, and its affect upon Cole's ability to give a free and voluntary confession and to understand his Miranda rights. First, Cole argues his confession was introduced in violation of his Miranda and due process rights. According to Cole, his mental retardation prevented him from knowingly and intelligently waiving his constitutional rights. Second, Cole contends his confession was involuntary for this same reason. These claims are barred from consideration by this Court in a post-conviction environment because the only issue raised on direct appeal concerning Cole's confession was whether or not he was effectively prevented from arguing to the jury matters concerning the credibility of his confession. This Court concluded that Cole was not prevented from challenging the voluntariness of the confession and this assignment of error is without merit. Cole v. State, 525 So.2d at 369. It is clear that this Court's opinion and the transcript of trial reflect that Cole's low intelligence level was considered during the suppression hearing in determining the voluntariness of his confession. Therefore, the portions of these two claims that were raised and decided on direct appeal are barred via the doctrine of res judicata. Those parts that are raised here for the first time in Cole's post-conviction application are barred by the doctrine of waiver because they could and should have been raised at trial and on direct appeal. Lockett v. State, 614 So.2d at 893.