Fowler v. State, 40302
Decision Date | 31 May 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 40302,40302 |
Citation | 263 So.2d 202 |
Parties | Jerry Dwayne FOWLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Alex D. Finch, Clearwater, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
By direct appeal, we have for review a judgment and sentence convicting appellant Jerry Dwayne Fowler of murder in the first degree (Fla.Stat. § 782.04(1), F.S.A.) without a recommendation of mercy by the jury. Jurisdiction over the appeal attaches by virtue of Fla.Const. Article V, Section 4(2), F.S.A. We affirm the judgment entered below.
Three points are urged by appellant for reversal of his conviction. Concerning our disposition of the first point, the necessity for a plenary hearing as to appellant's competency to stand trial, see Fowler v. State, 255 So.2d 513 (Fla.1971). In that opinion we determined that CrPR 1.210(a) required such a hearing, and accordingly remanded the cause to the trial court with instructions that a hearing be provided. A plenary hearing has now been held, appellant has been adjudicated competent to stand trial, and the record in the cause returned to this Court; therefore, we turn at this time to the remaining contentions urged by appellant.
First, appellant challenges the adequacy of the warnings given him by the arresting authorities pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). It appears from the record in the cause that Fowler was taken into custody at approximately 1:00 P.M. on the afternoon of October 13, 1969, two days after the murder. Upon arrival at the county jail, Fowler was advised of his rights 'from the rights card' and he indicated that he understood them. He was then questioned intermittently by Detective Anderson and Captain McMullen from 1:45 P.M. until 5:30 P.M., at which time he gave an oral statement admitting his guilt. Throughout this time, he was never placed in a cell, but sat in an air-conditioned office on the premises of the county jail. Two or three times he was left alone for short periods while the officers conferred or drank coffee.
Between 5:30 P.M. and 6:15 P.M. Fowler's oral statemewnt was reduced to writing; he signed it, after reading it, at 6:15 P.M., and the questioning period was brought to an end. Insofar as it pertains to the adequacy of his Miranda warnings, Fowler's statement reads as follows:
'I am Detective Donald Anderson of the Pinellas County, Florida, Sheriff's Department.
'A. Jerry Dawyne Fowler, 20, 1630 Greenwood Avenue South, Clearwater, Florida.
In the circumstances, we are satisfied that Fowler was adequately advised of his rights, that he understood them, and that he intelligently waived them. In State v. Craig, 237 So.2d 737 (Fla.1970), the most recent pronouncement of this Court on the Miranda question, we said:
'In determining whether proper warnings with respect to right to counsel and right to remain silent have been given to a suspect, factors to be considered are whether the suspect understood that he did not have to speak, the consequences of speaking, and that he had a right to counsel before and while doing so if he wished.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anderson v. Sec'y
...claims on their merits. Citing to California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 101 S.Ct. 2806 (1981) and its own decision in Fowler v. State, 263 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1972), and after reviewing the transcripts of Anderson's March 20, 1999 interrogation, the Florida Supreme Court found that Anderson was......
-
Anderson v. State
...as the warnings are not misleading. See California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 359, 101 S.Ct. 2806, 69 L.Ed.2d 696 (1981); Fowler v. State, 263 So.2d 202 (Fla.1972). Anderson was twice read his Miranda rights, once when he was arrested and again when the interrogation began. The transcript fr......
-
Ferguson v. State
...was competent to stand trial. Byrd v. State, 297 So.2d 22 (Fla.1974); Fowler v. State, 255 So.2d 513 (Fla.1971), later appeal, 263 So.2d 202 (Fla.1972). Defendant's sanity at the time of the offense was a factual issue determined adversely to him by the jury's verdict. The evidence is suffi......
-
Jones v. State, 75--768
...86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); McDole v. State, Fla.1973, 283 So.2d 553; Ashley v. State, Fla.1972, 265 So.2d 685; Fowler v. State, Fla.1972, 263 So.2d 202; Simmons v. State, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 84; Reynolds v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 246; Cameron v. State, Fla.App.1968, 2......