Sotolongo v. State
| Decision Date | 09 May 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D00-976.,3D00-976. |
| Citation | 787 So.2d 915 |
| Parties | Fernando SOTOLONGO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John H. Lipinski, Hollywood, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Linda S. Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before COPE, GODERICH, and RAMIREZ, JJ.
Fernando Sotolongo appeals the denial of his motion to suppress statements made to the police, the denial of his motions for mistrial, and the introduction of photos of the victim at trial. We find no error in the trial court's rulings and therefore affirm.
Sotolongo was convicted of the first degree murder of Sara Lefont. After his arrest, Sotolongo was read his Miranda rights and given a waiver form to sign. Sotolongo started to sign the form, became agitated, then tore and crumpled the form and threw it on the floor. In a few minutes, Sotolongo calmed down and stated he would cooperate by speaking to the police. Sotolongo read his rights out loud to detectives and signed a second form. He then gave a complete statement about the murder, including his involvement. Subsequently, Sotolongo moved to suppress his statements claiming he had not validly waived his right to counsel, as evidenced by his tearing of the waiver form. The trial court denied the motion.
We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sotolongo's motion to suppress his confession. In Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 459, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994), the Supreme Court held that an equivocal request for an attorney is not an invocation of the right to silence. In this case, the act of tearing up the first waiver form is even more equivocal than the "request" at issue in Davis and cannot be equated to an invocation of the right to remain silent.1
The next issue raised by Sotolongo derives from comments made by one of the co-perpetrators who testified against him. In response to cross-examination by defense counsel, the witness pointed at Sotolongo and asked defense counsel to get Sotolongo to corroborate the testimony. Defense counsel then moved for a mistrial due to the witness' allusion to the defendant's right to refrain from testifying. The trial court denied defense counsel's motion for a mistrial, admonished the witness and instructed the jury to disregard the comment. The witness ignored the admonishment and repeated the comment later in his testimony.
We hold that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the mistrial while sustaining the objection and instructing the jury. A motion for mistrial should be granted only when it is necessary to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial. See Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537, 547 (Fla.1999) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...silence), review denied, 821 So.2d 295 (Fla.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1010, 123 S.Ct. 505, 154 L.Ed.2d 412 (2002); Sotolongo v. State, 787 So.2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)(act of tearing up waiver form is not unequivocal invocation of right to silence), review denied, 816 So.2d 129 (Fla.200......
-
Cuervo v. State
...so. See Owen, 862 So.2d at 697-698. They may also give multiple Miranda warnings, to ascertain a defendant's intent. Sotolongo v. State, 787 So.2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). They are also permitted to continue to communicate with a defendant even after he has invoked his right to remain silent......
-
Calero v. Metropolitan Dade County, 3D00-1444.
...787 So.2d 911Maria del Carmen CALERO, Appellant,. v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee. No. 3D00-1444. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. May 9, 2001. Rehearing and Certification Denied July 11, ......