Court Opinion

ID: 9664912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:33:54.607612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:11.104855
License: Public Domain

FINCH, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the principal opinion except the discussion of the Miranda and Carnley v. Cochran cases in the paragraph relating to appellants’ Point VI (b).
That paragraph correctly recites that appellants were given full Miranda warnings, including advice of their fight to have counsel present and that counsel would be appointed for them if they could not afford counsel, after which they specifically stated that they did not desire to have counsel present.
Those statements by appellants constituted waivers of their right to have counsel present and provide sufficient basis upon which to dispose of appellants’ Point VI (b). The rest of the discussion in that paragraph is unnecessary to the opinion. The Supreme Court of the United States has not elaborated as yet upon what constitutes a waiver other than to say that mere silence is insufficient. Under those circumstances, I would not speculate unnecessarily at this time as to what those decisions mean when same is not necessary to this opinion.