SC08-1723 – Joseph Modeste v. State of Florida

State: Florida

Docket No: SC08-1723

Case Date: 03/05/2009

Preview:Supreme Court of Florida
____________ No. SC08-1723 ____________ JOSEPH MODESTE, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. [March 5, 2009] PER CURIAM. We have for review State v. Modeste, 987 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (en banc), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal certified conflict with the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decisions in West v. State, 876 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), and Roberts v. State, 874 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), in holding that the subject Miranda* warnings adequately advised of the right to have counsel present during interrogation. In so holding, the Fifth District Court further recognized that its conclusion on this issue may be in conflict with the Second _______________________ * Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

District Court of Appeal's decision in Powell v. State, 969 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), approved, 998 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2008). At the time the Fifth District Court issued its decision in Modeste, Powell was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V,

Download SC08-1723 – Joseph Modeste v. State of Florida.pdf