Court Opinion

ID: 9903244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 15:33:35.710428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:21.891134
License: Public Domain

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                      FIFTH DISTRICT

                                  NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
                                  FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
                                  DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

DARRON O. WOODBERRY,

            Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v.                                         Case No. 5D21-2737
                                           LT Case No. 2017-305027-CFDB

STATE OF FLORIDA,

            Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

________________________________/

Opinion filed April 28, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Volusia County,
Matthew M. Foxman, Judge.

Jessica J. Travis, of DefendBrevard.com,
Melbourne, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona
Beach, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

PER CURIAM.
     AFFIRMED. See Shelly v. State, 262 So. 3d 1, 16–17 (Fla. 2018).

However, similar to what our sister court did in Penna v. State, 344 So. 3d

420, 442 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), we reword and certify to the Florida Supreme

Court the following question of great public importance:

             WHERE A DEFENDANT INITIALLY INVOKED HIS
             FIFTH AMENDMENT MIRANDA 1 RIGHTS BUT
             SUBSEQUENTLY REINITIATES CONTACT WITH
             LAW     ENFORCEMENT,       DOES     LAW
             ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATICALLY VIOLATE
             THOSE RIGHTS BY GENERALLY REMINDING
             DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHTS RATHER THAN
             FULLY RE-MIRANDIZING THE DEFENDANT?

WALLIS, EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

     1
         Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

                                      2