Shelly v. State
| Decision Date | 13 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. SC16-1195,SC16-1195 |
| Citation | 262 So.3d 1 |
| Parties | Leshannon Jerome SHELLY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Cathy A. Williams of Law Office of Cathy A. Williams PLLC, Cornelius, North Carolina; and Thomas J. Seider of Brannock & Humphries, Tampa, Florida, for Petitioner
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, Celia A. Terenzio, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Cynthia L. Comras, Luke R. Napodano, and Donna M. Perry, Assistant Attorneys General, West Palm Beach, Florida, for Respondent
LeShannon Jerome Shelly seeks review of the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Shelly v. State , 199 So.3d 973 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), on the basis that it expressly and directly conflicts with the decision of this Court in Welch v. State , 992 So.2d 206 (Fla. 2008), on a question of law. The decision below references Moss v. State , 60 So.3d 540 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), instead of Welch , even though it states that Shelly reinitiated communication after invoking his right to counsel. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
On December 14, 2011, around 11:15 p.m., officers were called to the Orangewood Apartments in Indian River County, Florida, in response to a reported shooting. Upon arrival, officers found two victims, Shanice Smith, who was dead, and Brittany Jackson, who was still alive. The following day, Shelly appeared at the Indian River County Jail at approximately 5:00 a.m. Shelly agreed to answer questions after being taken to the interrogation room and read his Miranda1 rights. The entire interrogation was videotaped and monitored.2
Shelly claimed he was in Boynton Beach with two friends during the time of the murder. However, Detective Kevin Heinig informed Shelly that both of his friends claimed that they were not with Shelly past 9:45 p.m.
Detective Heinig then informed Shelly that he was spotted by two eyewitnesses leaving the vicinity of the murder shortly after gunshots were heard.
Shelly then asked Detective Heinig to call his mother so she could confirm that he was dropped off by his two friends at the Fort Pierce Greyhound bus station after coming back from Boynton Beach. Detective Heinig exited the interrogation room and Detective Chris Cassinari entered. Detective Cassinari pointed out several issues within Shelly's account of his whereabouts. Shelly then asked Detective Cassinari to call his mother so she could corroborate his alibi.
Detective Cassinari then exited the interrogation room. While alone in the room, Shelly stated, Detective Heinig then entered the room and played a portion of a recorded conversation that the detectives had with Shelly's grandmother. Shelly became frustrated that the detectives had spoken with his grandmother instead of his mother. Detective Heinig explained to Shelly that Shelly's mother was also on the phone during the conversation. The following exchange then occurred:
Detective Heinig then stood immediately outside of the interrogation room and had a brief conversation with other detectives concerning Shelly's pending transfer to jail. While Detective Heinig was speaking with the other detectives Shelly continued to make comments with regard to the phone call with his mother and grandmother.
Detective Heinig then exited the room and Detective Tony Consalo entered. The following exchange then took place.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Leyba
...being charged with and then got up to leave, and the suspect immediately said, "I'd like to say something else." See also Shelly v. State , 262 So. 3d 1, 15 (Fla. 2018) (immediately after invoking his right to counsel, the defendant continued and reinitiated the conversation by asking the d......
-
Penna v. State
...given the defendant his Miranda rights again, violated his Miranda rights, as the Florida Supreme Court held in Shelly v. State , 262 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2018).The state filed a written response arguing that all of the defendant's statements to the deputy were spontaneous and not the result of c......
-
N.J.O. v. State
...or her rights, it is improper for officers to attempt to coax or cajole a suspect into waiving those rights. See, e.g., Shelly v. State, 262 So. 3d 1, 17 (Fla. 2018) (holding that it was a violation of the suspect's Miranda rights for the police to attempt to coax the suspect into permittin......
-
Kramer v. State, No. 4D18-88
...after her invocation of rights where the interrogation did not cease upon the suspect's invocation of rights. Shelly v. State , 262 So. 3d 1, 17 (Fla. 2018)."[T]he admissibility of statements obtained after the person in custody has decided to remain silent depends under Miranda on whether ......
-
Defendant's statements
...may be properly admitted. The accused be specifically given his or her Miranda rights after an alleged re-initiation. Shelley v. State, 262 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2018) Defendant’s mention of the word “lawyer”, while on video tape in an interrogation room but alone, is an equivocal invocation of th......