5D04-4177 JonathanMaxwell v. State

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Fifth District Court » 2006 » 5D04-4177 JonathanMaxwell v. State

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D04-4177

Case Date: 01/02/2006

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2005

JONATHAN MAXWELL, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed January 6, 2006 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Kenneth R. Lester, Jr., Judge. James M. Appellant. Campbell, Orlando, for Case No. 5D04-4177

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Timothy D. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

SAWAYA, J. The issue we must resolve is whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress two incriminating statements made by Jonathan Maxwell to the police. Resolution of this issue depends upon the adequacy of the Miranda 1 warnings given to Jonathan and whether he was in custody before he made the incriminating statements.

1

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

This case evolves from an occurrence that we see far too often, it seems, involving two teenage children who engage in sexual intercourse only to subsequently discover that one of them has committed a crime. The case we now review is

especially tragic because both children are mentally challenged and did not know that their entanglement in the tender affairs of life was an illegal act for which Jonathan Maxwell, seventeen years of age, would be held criminally liable. The record reveals that when Jonathan was first confronted by the police, he did not even realize that he had done anything wrong and did not know why the police were questioning him. When Jonathan finally understood that the police were concerned about his sexual escapade with S.B., a female three years younger than he, Jonathan made two incriminating statements. After he was charged with lewd and lascivious battery on a person

between the ages of 12 and 16, Jonathan filed a motion to suppress the statements claiming that he was not properly advised of his Miranda rights. This motion was denied and Jonathan entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge aforementioned, reserving his right to appeal the suppression issue based on a stipulation by the State that it is dispositive. It is not necessary to discuss in detail the facts of this case. Suffice it to say that Jonathan was enticed into watching sexually explicit videos and engaging in sexual intercourse by S.B., a neighbor. The incident was discovered by S.B.'s mother, who reported it to the police. Thereafter, Jonathan made two incriminating statements: the first was made outside his home, and the second, a videotaped statement, was made at the police station. Prior to making the first statement, a police officer attempted to advise Jonathan of his Miranda rights from rote. It is uncontested that the officer failed

2

to advise Jonathan that he had a right to have an attorney present during questioning and that an attorney would be appointed to represent him if he could not afford one. The police never again advised Jonathan of his Miranda rights. Although the officer described Jonathan as callow and a na

Download 5D04-4177 JonathanMaxwell v. State.pdf