Opinion ID: 6107861
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to Suppress Custodial Statement

Text: For his first point on appeal, Gordon argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object and file a motion to suppress his  Miranda rights form and custodial statement in violation of [his] [F]ifth and Sixth Amendment Rights to the United States Constitution and Rule  4.5 (Limitation on Questioning), of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. He further argues that being identified by two eye witnesses is a point that is irrelevant and should not have been considered [because he] does not contest being at the scene or even committing the crime. Gordon contends he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to prove his claims and prejudice. 4 A petitioner seeking postconviction relief on a claim of ineffective assistance that is based on a failure to make a motion or objection must show that counsel could have made a successful argument in order to demonstrate the prejudice required under the Strickland test. See Greene v. State , 356 Ark. 59 , 146 S.W.3d 871 (2004). Failure to make a meritless objection or motion does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. Here, although Gordon contends that the recording of his custodial interview was stopped at his request because he invoked his right to remain silent, the record from the direct appeal indicates otherwise. 5 Prior to the recording being stopped for the first time, Detective John White and Detective DeWanna Phillips confirmed Gordon's basic information, that he had been read his Miranda rights, that he was able to read and write, that he had not been threatened or promised anything, that he could stop the interview at any point, and that he had signed the waiver form. 6 After confirming this information, Detective White asked Gordon, You saying you don't want to record it now? Gordon responded by stating, I don't want it recorded. Detective White turned off the recording, and after a few minutes, the second recording was made. Detective White acknowledged on the second recording that they took a break from recording because Gordon had concerns about the safety of his family and that Gordon wished the interview would be sealed until ... [p]eople were picked up. These recordings were played at trial. The trial court found that there was no evidence in the record to suggest that Gordon was not properly advised of his rights or that he did not give a knowing and intelligent waiver of those rights. The trial court further found that Gordon's argument disregarded that two eyewitnesses had identified him, and that he was not entitled to relief.  Here, the record demonstrates that Gordon admitted he committed the offenses, and the eyewitness testimony confirmed that he committed the offenses notwithstanding the admission of his statements. The record further demonstrates that Gordon did not invoke his right to remain silent. Gordon simply requested that his statement not be recorded at that time, which does not rise to the level of an invocation of his right to remain silent. See Sykes v. State , 2009 Ark. 522 , 357 S.W.3d 882 (The right to remain silent must be made unequivocally.); see also Standridge v. State , 329 Ark. 473 , 951 S.W.2d 299 (1997) (defendant stating that he was not ready to talk but then immediately continued to answer questions of the police officers was not invocation of right to remain silent). Further, failure to make a meritless objection or motion does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Greene , 356 Ark. 59 , 146 S.W.3d 871 . Therefore, based on the discussion above, we do not find merit in Gordon's argument and affirm the circuit court.