Court Opinion

ID: 9546232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:26:30.065837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:11.279817
License: Public Domain

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge,
dissenting:
The record is void of any evidence that law enforcement personnel, in order to continue the questioning of the defendant without interruption, purposefully prevented Attorney Martin from seeing him; nor, does it disclose the employment of Martin by the defendant or any person expressly authorized by him to do so. To the contrary, when questioned concerning his desire for counsel, the defendant rejected the opportunity.1 It is clear to me that the defendant was not deprived of any constitutional right and that his confession was freely and voluntarily made after he had received miranda warnings. See, State v. Blansford, supra. The proof of the defendant’s guilt is overwhelming. The conviction should be affirmed.

. The trial and preliminary hearing record reveals the following:
A)
Q. Did you ask for a lawyer?
A. No, sir. (Trial Tr. 101)
B)
Q. Did you ask anybody to get you a lawyer?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember them telling you you had the right to an attorney?
A. Yes. (P.H. Tr. 165).