Wilson v. State, Case No. 2D15–1730
| Decision Date | 04 April 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2D15–1730 |
| Citation | 242 So.3d 484 |
| Parties | Andre Lamont WILSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
242 So.3d 484
Andre Lamont WILSON, Jr., Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Case No. 2D15–1730
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Opinion filed April 4, 2018.
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Carol J.Y. Wilson, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Brandon R. Christian, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Andre Lamont Wilson, Jr., appeals his judgments for burglary of an occupied structure while armed with a firearm, robbery with a firearm, aggravated battery with a firearm, and two counts of armed kidnapping with a firearm. Mr. Wilson was sentenced to fifteen years in prison on the aggravated battery count and consecutive life sentences with a ten-year minimum mandatory term for the remaining counts. Each conviction factually stemmed from a robbery of a Pizza Hut on December 12, 2012.
The issue presented by Mr. Wilson is whether the conduct of law enforcement officers during his interrogation violated protections afforded him by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Florida and, more specifically, those protections provided by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Based on our review of the record, including the audio and video recording of the interrogation, we conclude that the confession given by Mr. Wilson, elicited prior to the administration of Miranda warnings, was obtained improperly. The trial court erred in denying Mr. Wilson's motion to suppress, and this error was not harmless.
We are required to reverse and remand for further proceedings and note that "[t]he disadvantage of the Miranda rule is that statements which may be by no means involuntary, made by a defendant who is aware of his ‘rights,’ may nonetheless be excluded and a guilty defendant go free as a result." Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 444, 120 S.Ct. 2326, 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000).
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 18, 2012, Mr. Wilson agreed to meet with officers of the Sebring Police Department at a park near his home. He had contacted the officers at the request of a friend. When the officers arrived at the park, they asked if Mr. Wilson would be willing to talk with them at the station. He agreed, and the officers gave him a ride in their vehicle.
At the beginning of the interview, Mr. Wilson did not know what the officers wanted to discuss with him. Mr. Wilson stated that he needed to leave by 3:30 p.m. to meet someone. The officer responded, "[Y]ou won't be here that long. And like I said, we'll ride you home whenever you're ready." They also told him where the exits were and told him he was free to leave at any time.
The interview was held in a small room with a closed door at the station. It began around 2 p.m. and ended just after 5:30 p.m. Minutes into the questioning, Mr. Wilson was told, "Well, the reason we're here to talk to you today is we've had a series of robberies in which you have become a suspect."
Mr. Wilson denied any involvement, but the officers were not deterred. The officers stated that they had collected evidence from the scene and that they knew he was involved. The officers stated they were willing to work with him, but he needed to "stop playing games" and "start either coming clean or you're going to end up taking the ride." The officers pressed him with increasing details of evidence implicating him in the crime, including DNA and fingerprints found on items linked to the robbery. These items were found at the house of his friend, Terrell. They stated they had GPS data and phone call
recordings and could place Mr. Wilson at that house just after the robbery. After some time, Mr. Wilson acknowledged he may have touched a gun that was at the friend's house, but he denied using the gun, denied owning a cell phone, and denied any involvement in the robbery.
The officers responded that it was obvious he was not telling the truth "because the gun that you've tied yourself to was used in an armed robbery.... So all this stuff that you're giving is just tying you more and more and more to the armed robbery." They went on to tell him, "I can look you in the eye and without a shadow of a doubt, all right, through forensics and DNA and other evidence and other statements put you in Pizza Hut" at the time of the robbery. "I know the last thing you want is another armed robbery with a firearm charge.... Without us talking to the State Attorney, that will send you up for a number of Christmases and a number of your birthdays."
They told him that a shot was fired from a gun during the robbery, making it "a 10/20/Life1 case." They also stated that they had his DNA on a gun that was fired and that they recovered a projectile and casing from the scene. After further denials, one officer stated: "We know pretty much what's happened. All right. We wanted to give you the opportunity to be forthcoming, so we can tell the State Attorney that you need a second chance." After explaining that they had "a stack of evidence" against Mr. Wilson, one officer stated: "When it comes down, it's going to come down so hard until there's nothing that we can do for you.... We're giving you the opportunity to continue your life."
Mr. Wilson was told that they could have arrested him already and, if he continued to deny his involvement, "when we present it to the State Attorney, all right, they are going to issue a warrant for your arrest. And you're going to go to jail." However, they offered him a way out and stated they were willing to recommend probation if he would tell them the truth, but this was a one-time offer.
The officers explained that they believed he was the driver for the robbery and they could track him to Terrell's house where the stolen money and employees' cell phones were found, along with face masks and guns. After giving him a bottle of water, they explained that they believed he was worth saving, and so they wanted to give him a second chance at life if he would tell the truth. The officers then explained that they would be willing to recommend that his prior robbery charge and the instant case be lumped together and that he receive a total of eight years of probation. When Mr. Wilson questioned the impact of a recommendation, one officer reassured him: "I've been a cop 16 years .... I have never seen the State not go with the recommendations that we make." The officers agreed to "stand up" for Mr. Wilson and recommend no prison time. When Mr. Wilson stated, "I don't want to go to prison," one officer offered to put on the record, "I promise you I will go to the State Attorney and recommend that you catch probation. No prison time." The other two officers agreed, and they told him that they needed to get the truth from him that day: "In other words, you can't leave here today and think about it and call us tomorrow.... [I]t's all or nothing right here right now."
Mr. Wilson expressed interest in the plan, asked for a pen and paper to get the officers' names, and then asked to use the phone. Mr. Wilson stated, "I just want to get my lawyer's opinion on this.... I just
want to get my lawyer's opinion of it." The officer said that was fine, it was his right, but it would end the discussion. Mr. Wilson said, "I just want to just like see if that's—that's even possible what you guys are telling me." Then the officer presented an alternative to Mr. Wilson calling his lawyer, stating: "I'll do you one better.... I'll bring you our boss in. All right. And you can ask him."
The other officers exited, and the boss came in and spent some time answering Mr. Wilson's questions one-on-one. He explained that the officers would make a recommendation based on his cooperation and, while they could not give a guarantee, he could very possibly get house arrest. He explained that he was getting this offer before any of the other suspects and told Mr. Wilson that it could not hurt him in any way to work with the officers.
At the end of this consultation, Mr. Wilson seemed reassured and stated, "I just wanted to get it from another opinion." The sergeant reiterated, "You ain't got nothing to lose." The steps of the plea negotiations were explained, the three officers further assured Mr. Wilson, "[W]e're going to go to bat for you," and Mr. Wilson then gave his confession that was later placed, as evidence, before the jury.
After giving his recorded statement confessing to his involvement in the armed robbery, Mr. Wilson was in fact permitted to go home, and it was not until a follow-up interview the next day that Mr. Wilson was advised of his constitutional rights, commonly known as the Miranda warnings.
On April 2, 2014, Mr. Wilson filed a motion to suppress his statement, asserting that it was obtained during an improper custodial interrogation, that it was obtained by coercion, and that he had invoked his right to counsel which was ignored. Counsel for Mr. Wilson and for the State stipulated that the trial court would review the recording of the interview off the record and thereafter rule on the motion to suppress. Later, when asked by the parties if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
...If law enforcement cannot coerce an admission of guilt from a defendant without violating due process, see Wilson v. State , 242 So. 3d 484, 491 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (explaining that the Florida Constitution prohibits the admission of governmentally compelled statements), a court cannot likew......
-
N.J.O. v. State
...verdict, then the error is by definition harmful. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1139 (Fla. 1986) ; see also Wilson v. State, 242 So. 3d 484, 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). In the context of sentencing, an "error is harmless only if there is no reasonable possibility that the error contribute......
-
Moak v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
...if the answers caused the suspect to have 9 “unrealistic hope and delusions as to his [or her] true position.” Wilson v. State, 242 So.3d 484, (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (internal citations omitted); accord Cuervo v. State, 967 So.2d 155, 165-66 (Fla. 2007) (finding effect of Miranda warning was re......
-
State v. Vazquez
...the situation, we consider the four factors set forth in Ramirez[ v. State], 739 So. 2d [568, 574 (Fla. 1999) ]." Wilson v. State, 242 So. 3d 484, 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). Those factors are:(1) the manner in which police summon the suspect for questioning; (2) the purpose, place, and manner ......
-
Preliminary proceedings (bail and bond; attorney for defendant)
...in suppression of any statements prior to Miranda . ( ** Ed. Note: great discussion of custody and interrogation) Wilson v. State, 242 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) Error to deny motion to suppress defendant’s statement to law enforcement, as law enforcement failed to clarify or explain to ......
-
Defendant's statements
...is the admission of governmentally compelled statements. ( **Ed Note : great discussion of custody and interrogation) Wilson v. State, 242 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) Defendant was interviewed five times by the police after the death of her infant. Each interview was recorded, and during ......