WOODBERRY v. STATE (2023)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Darron O. WOODBERRY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Case No. 5D21-2737

Decided: April 28, 2023

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.

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?

FOOTNOTES

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

PER CURIAM.

WALLIS, EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network