WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL RICHARD E GERSTEIN JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG. THIS BLOG IS DEDICATED TO JUSTICE BUILDING RUMOR, HUMOR, AND A DISCUSSION ABOUT AND BETWEEN THE JUDGES, LAWYERS AND THE DEDICATED SUPPORT STAFF, CLERKS, COURT REPORTERS, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHO LABOR IN THE WORLD OF MIAMI'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE. THIS BLOG HAS BEEN CALLED "THE DEFINITIVE BLOG ON MIAMI CRIMINAL LAW" BY THE NY TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE POPE, AND DONALD TRUMP WHO ALSO ONCE SAID IT WAS "REALLY GREAT". POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

3rd DCA ROUNDUP - AGE IS A STATE OF MIND EDITION

One case on the 3rd DCA roundup today, and it involves Miranda and a Defendant's age.

In JM v. State, the 3rd DCA affirmed the conviction of a juvenile for possession of a firearm by a minor, where the evidence of JM's age came from the officer's custodial interrogation of the defendant. While the general rule is that Miranda does not apply to general booking information
(name, age, bondsman, favourite colour, boxers or briefs, etc) see, Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 601 (1990) and Allred v. State, 622 So. 2d 984, 987 (Fla. 1993), JM argued that his age in this particular case was not just a general booking question, but went to the heart of the criminal case against him. As such, if JM's age was obtained through pre-Miranda custodial interrogation, the answer should have been suppressed and not allowed into evidence.

Great argument, but it's a loser.

From the opinion:

Even though J.M.’s age later took on an added significance, this does not mean that the information obtained should be suppressed because it was obtained prior to J.M. being advised of his Miranda warnings. J.M.’s age is the type of information law enforcement is required to obtain and inevitably would have been discovered.



BONUS FLORIDA SUPREME COURT OPINION


For very complicated reasons which we have neither the time nor the inclination to delve into, we report to you the following decision:

In Sanders v. State the defendant had three cases for which he received the following sentence: two years prison, followed by three years probation for the third degree felonies plus an additional two years probation on the second degree felonies.


To make a very long story short, the defendant violated his probation while serving the probation term for the second degree felonies. Everyone agrees that the court's jurisdiction over the third degree felonies had expired at the time the court found that the defendant had violated his probation. However, when constructing the score sheet (and what a score sheet it must have been) the court scored the third degree felonies as "additional offenses."


The Supreme Court held that they are not additional offenses. When the court loses jurisdiction over a felony, that felony cannot be scored as an additional offense. End of story. Don't bother trying to figure out why.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

It makes perfect sense. If the defendant is charged with violating probation in the second degree felonies and the thrid degree felonies are closed, then they are no longer "additional" offenses to be sentenced for. He's already been sentenced for them.

CAPTAIN said...

Rumpole, you had 16 comments yesterday on the shirt with the inappropriate wording that led to 48 hours in jail.

Did anyone read the article that stated the young lady wearing the shirt was not a defendant in the case. She was not a witness in the case. She was not appearing before the court in a case. She was sitting in the courtroom watching the court proceedings.

If the Judge felt the language was inappropriate, then tell the Bailiff to escort her out of "my courtroom" and not to come back dressed the same way.

The "direct contempt" was when the Judge asked her to explain why she was wearing such an inappropriate shirt and she had no response. Ridiculous.

While I agree that the dress at the GJB is also ridiculous and many of the people who appear before Judges should be dressed more formally, this lady did not deserve to go to jail.

Ever heard of the First Amendment, Judge. This was not the lady yelling "Fire" in a crowded courtroom.

Cap Out ...

CAPTAIN said...

The Captain Report:

Now, you want CONTEMPT. You really want CONTEMPT ....

GO here:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/
courts/criminal/twin-switcheroo-lands-both-brothers-in-pinellas-county-jail/1092464

Defendant on trial in Tampa for scheming to defraud. Defense attorney in court with "his client". Defendant has a twin brother. You see where this is going - no you don't.

Defendant flying back to Tampa and plane is late and he will not be back in time for start of trial. Defendant asks his twin brother to stand in for him, just until he gets back and they can pull a switcheroo.

Only one problem: Defense attorney realizes the switch while speaking to "his client" (actually the twin brother) and the client did not seem to remember basic aspects of the case. Also, attorney has represented the twin brother before. So he was aware of the twin brother.

So, what does the defense attorney do? What would YOU do?

This defense attorney told the Judge about his suspicions. The Judge confronted the twin and the twin clained to be the defendant. After prints were run, confirming who he really was, the Judge held him in CONTEMPT and sent him off to jail for 179 days.

Oh yeah. He also locked up the real defendant as soon as he got back from out of town.

NOW THAT'S CONTEMPT.

CAP OUT ...

Anonymous said...

Wearing that shirt to court is contemptuous and the woman got everything she deserved. Free speech is fine, but that shirt was absurd...should have been treated the same as if the woman stood up and said it.

I was so sick of idiots wearing marijuana shirts to court when they were charged in pot cases...the judges should have thrown them and their lawyers in jail for it.

Anonymous said...

Creating thousands of new jobs and billions in yearly revenue



Florida City, Florida - to be the next Atlantic City, New Jersey - Vegas-in-Florida casinos, Multibillion-dollar hotel resorts with casino gambling, celebrity chefs and luxury shopping.

Executives from Las Vegas Sands, which operates the Venetian and Palazzo on the Vegas strip, have said they are ready to get started.

Andy Abboud, vice president for communications at Las Vegas Sands, recently was quoted "build something spectacular. There's only a handful of places left where we could spend billions of dollars on a resort -- Japan, Florida, maybe Europe. We look at is as a worldwide market, a worldwide destination."

Ideal location between the fabulous Florida Keys and South Beach, but far enough away from Central Miami to be comfortable for long time Miami-Dade County, residents. The Area is ripe for re-building efforts with plenty of available land area to occupy.

Why would Florida pass up the opportunity to be the number one tourist destination on the planet. The new Florida City will create thousands of news jobs, bringing in billions of new dollars from tourist world wide.

Imagine the slogan: Come and discover why Florida City is one of the most popular casino vacation spots in the world.

One approach, being kicked around, would be an auction in which gambling operators try to outbid each other for the right to build full-scale casinos.

Florida is a world wide destination for tourist, we must compete for the tourist dollar, we must get creative, we must get in gear, we must make Florida the number one tourist destination in the world.

Our economy depends on the tourist dollar - plan now for the future.

Rumpole said...

1) The Judge had every right to tell the person to leave the courtroom because she found the shirt offensive and disruptive. if the person wearing the shirt was a defendant, the Judge had every right to tell the defendant to dress appropriately for court and to return on another day. The Judge had NO RIGHT to find the woman in contempt. Wearing the shirt expressed an idea, no matter how stupid or offensive. Could the Judge have jailed the woman if her shirt had a swastika? Or a Star Of David? Or a Cross? Or a Picture of Dolfan Denny?

2) The Defense attorney had an obligation NOT to tell the Judge of the switcharoo. The Defense attorney also had an obligation NOT to proceed to trial or the hearing. The defense attorney had to say he could not proceed and could not say why.

A former Judge said...

Rumpole- please print this . You deserve it. I sent you an email last Monday and mentioned I had about $20,000 i discretionary funds that I was interested in investing. I was looking at some stocks. You strongly advised me against entering the market. We traded some emails later in the day and discussed various stocks. You eventually advised me to buy some puts and essentially sell the market and specific stocks short, which I did. In English- you told me to make a small bet that the market would fall. I eventually moved $15,000 into puts over the last 8 days. Needless to say that today my profit is approaching a cool $100,000.00 !!!!
Thank you, thank you, thank you. You are the best and you have made my year.

Anonymous said...

Rump, I agree with you that the judge had no business finding the woman in contempt. But she had every right to give her a lecture and remove her from the courtroom. One of the first things I tell every client is to dress appropriately for court--collared shirt and a decent pair of pants at a minimum. At the very least wear something decent, modest and clean with no offensive or stupid messages. Same thing I told witnesses when I was an ASA.

Anonymous said...

rump who are the best ticket attorneys in dade county?