Oyarzo v. State, 71--450

Citation257 So.2d 108
Decision Date26 January 1972
Docket NumberNo. 71--450,71--450
PartiesCrispitano Oyarzo OYARZO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and W. Daniel Kearney, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

LILES, Judge.

Appellant Oyarzo was arrested in Tampa and charged in two counts with possession and sale of cocaine. The chain of events which led to Oyarzo's arrest was initiated in Mexico by undercover agents of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. Oyarzo then brought the cocaine to Tampa aboard the Chilean vessel Laja. After the vessel docked in Tampa, Agents Sedillo and Gonzalez met appellant on the dock and again discussed the sale. Oyarzo counted the money which the agents had brought with them, but would not complete the transaction at that time because there were too many people around. Sedillo and Gonzalez returned to the dock that same night, December 7, 1970, at about 10:30 P.M. At that time, Oyarzo told the agents that the cocaine had already been sold to another purchaser. Appellant was then arrested, advised of his rights, and questioned.

Appellant was tried by a jury and found guilty, and now brings this appeal. He contends that certain incriminating statement made by him should not have been admitted at the trial because at the time he was questioned he had not properly been advised of his rights. We should here point out that appellant Oyarzo speaks no English, and all transactions between him and the agents were in Spanish. When Oyarzo was arrested, his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, were read to him from a Miranda card printed in Spanish. Ordinarily, this reading in Spanish would suffice. However, the record in this case shows that appellant may have been misled as to his actual situation. Agent Sedillo testified as follows:

'Q What transpired the first thirty minutes?

A The first thirty minutes we had a problem obtaining a key to the vehicle in which we were. There was qute a bit of confusion down at the terminal in getting this man to the U.S. Customs Office. And most of the time during that period, Observing that the defendant was in fear, I explained to him that he had nothing to fear, that we would protect him, that we would take care of him, and I...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • State v. Oyarzo
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 21 Febrero 1973
    ...is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, reported at 257 So.2d 108. The decision sought to be reviewed conflicts with Rhome v. State, 1 giving this Court jurisdiction under § 4, Article V of the Florida Constitu......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT