IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA JUNIOR JOSEPH, ) ) Appellee/Petitioner, ) ) 5th DCA Case No. 5D09-1356 ) ) Supreme Court Case No. SC11-179 STATE OF FLORIDA,) ) Appellant/Respondent. ) ) APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL - FIFTH DISTRICT PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION JAMES S. PURDY PUBLIC DEFENDER SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT NOEL A. PELELLA Assistant Public Defender 444 Seabreeze Blvd., Suite 210 Daytona Beach, FL 32118 (386) 254-3758 COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CITATIONS i ii STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 4 ARGUMENT Point I 5 THE OPINION OF THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT IS IN EXPRESS AND DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT IN Miller v. State, 42 So.3d 204, 220 (Fla. 2010); State v. Powell, 998 So.2d 531 (Fla.2008); and Allred v. State, 622 So.2d 984,986 (Fla. 1993). THIS COURT S DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION MAY THEREFORE BE INVOKED PURSUANT TO Fla. R. App. Pro. 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv). Point II 9 THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION IN THIS CASE INVOLVED AN EXPRESS INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS, AND EXPRESSLY AFFECTS A CLASS OF STATE OFFICERS. THIS COURT S DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION MAY THEREFORE BE INVOKED PURSUANT TO Fla. Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii). CONCLUSION 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 12 i
CERTIFICATE OF FONT 12 ii
TABLE OF CITATIONS CASES CITED: PAGE No. Allred v. State 622 So.2d 984 (Fla. 1993) 4, 5, 7 Florida v. Powell 130 S. Ct. 1195 (2010) 5 Miller v. State 42 So.3d 204 (Fla. 2010) 4-6 State v. Joseph 2010 WL 4905500 (Fla. 5th DCA Dec. 3, 2010) 3, 6, 7, 10 State v. Powell 998 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2008) 3, 5, 6, 8 State v. Powell 998 So.2d 531 (Fla.2008) 4 OTHER AUTHORITIES CITED: Amendment V, United States Constitution 4, 7, 9 Amendment VI, United States Constitution 4, 7, 9 Article I, Section 9, Florida Constitution 4, 9 Rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv), Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 4, 5, 10 iii
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA JUNIOR JOSEPH, ) ) Appellee/Petitioner, ) ) 5th DCA Case No. 5D09-1356 ) ) Supreme Court Case No. STATE OF FLORIDA,) ) Appellant/Respondent. ) ) STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS The Petitioner was arrested and charged with first degree murder. An Orlando detective recited the Miranda warnings in English. The Petitioner then asked for a Creole interpreter, and a Creole-speaking officer was located. The officer recited a translation of the warnings as the detective read them in English, from a standardized card. (No such card was then available in Creole, and after this case, the Orlando Police Department promulgated a standardized Miranda warning card in the Creole language.). As the Creole interpretation was recited, the Petitioner responded by saying Okay as the individual warnings were read, but did not execute a written waiver of his rights. He then made statements that the State intends to use against him at trial. 1
The Petitioner filed a motion seeking to suppress his custodial statements, and after a hearing, the motion was granted. The trial court made the following findings: [T]he translation did not adequately advise the Defendant of his right to talk to an attorney or have an attorney present during questioning.... It is apparent... that the Defendant does speak and understand English. However, it is also apparent that the Defendant's native language is Creole and that he is more adept in speaking and understanding Creole. [E]ven though the Defendant spoke English, the fact that he was provided inconsistent versions may have confused the Defendant about the meaning of his rights [.]... Further, this Court notes that the Defendant did not affirmatively advise that he understood his rights after each warning. He merely stated okay.... Because this Court concludes that the Defendant's waiver of his Miranda rights was not knowing and voluntary because of the confusing and inconsistent Miranda warnings, this Court declines to address whether the English version of the Defendant's Miranda warnings was adequate in light of the Florida Supreme Court's opinion in State v. Powell, 2
998 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2008).. The State initiated an interlocutory appeal of the order granting the motion to suppress, and on December 3, 2010, the Fifth District Court issued a decision reversing the trial court s order. See, State v. Joseph, 2010 WL 4905500 (Fla. 5th DCA Dec. 3, 2010). A copy of the district court s opinion is attached in the Appendix to this brief. The Petitioner timely filed a motion for rehearing, and on December 30, 2010, the motion was denied by the district court. A copy of the district court s order denying rehearing is attached in the Appendix to this brief. (See Appendix, pg. 7) The Petitioner timely filed a Notice to Invoke this Court s discretionary jurisdiction, and the instant petition follows. 3
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Point I The Petitioner invokes the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Fla. R. App. Pro. 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv), based on conflict between the decision of the district court and the decisions of this Court in Miller v. State, 42 So.3d 204, 220 (Fla. 2010); State v. Powell, 998 So.2d 531 (Fla.2008); and Allred v. State, 622 So.2d 984,986 (Fla. 1993). Point II The decision of the district court involved an express interpretation of the provisions of Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution, and Amendments V and VI of the Constitution of the United States. In addition, the district court s opinion expressly affects a class of state officers; i.e., law enforcement officers in the State of Florida. 4
ARGUMENT - POINT I THE OPINION OF THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT IS IN EXPRESS AND DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT IN Miller v. State, 42 So.3d 204, 220 (Fla. 2010); State v. Powell, 998 So.2d 531 (Fla.2008); and Allred v. State, 622 So.2d 984,986 (Fla. 1993). THIS COURT S DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION MAY THEREFORE BE INVOKED PURSUANT TO Fla. R. App. Pro. 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv). The Petitioner submits that this Court May exercise its discretionary jurisdiction pursuant to Fla. R. App. Pro. 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv), based on conflict between the decision of the district court and the decisions of this Court in Miller v. State, 42 So.3d 204, 220 (Fla. 2010); State v. Powell, 998 So.2d 531 (Fla.2008); and Allred v. State, 622 So.2d 984,986 (Fla. 1993). The district court made a determination that the Creole translation of the Miranda warnings at issue was sufficient when analyzed in light of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. Powell, 130 S. Ct. 1195 (2010). See, State v. Joseph, 2010 WL 4905500, pg. 3, (Fla. 5 th DCA Dec. 3, 2010), ([W]e examine whether the translation satisfied Miranda, in light of Powell.); (See Appendix, pg. 5). The district court s holding is in direct conflict with the 5
decisions of this Court, which state that no custodial statement is admissible unless it first meets the prerequisites imposed by the Florida Constitution, as interpreted by the Florida courts. Miller v. State, 42 So.3d 204, 220 (Fla. 2010). In addition, the trial judge stated that he was specifically declining to conduct an analysis under this Court s Powell decision; because the Petitioner had not understood any of the Miranda warnings given to him. Despite the trial court s explicit finding that the entire warning given to the Petitioner was inadequate, the district court concluded that the only issue in this case was the adequacy of the particular warning regarding the right to the presence of counsel during questioning. State v. Joseph, supra, 2010 WL 4905500, pg 2, (It is the third requirement [he or she has a right to the help of a lawyer] that is implicated in this case.). (See Appendix, pg. 4). The district court s decision is thus in conflict with the decisions of this Court which State that Miranda warnings must inform the suspect of the entire panoply of constitutional rights. See, Allred v. State, 622 So.2d 984,986 (Fla. 1993). The district court s analysis of the Petitioner s so-called 6
waiver was thus insufficient, and its decision is in conflict with the decisions of this Court. The Petitioner submits that this Court may therefore exercise its jurisdiction to review the decision of the Fifth District Court in this case. 7
ARGUMENT - POINT II THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION IN THIS CASE INVOLVED AN EXPRESS INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS, AND EXPRESSLY AFFECTS A CLASS OF STATE OFFICERS. THIS COURT S DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION MAY THEREFORE BE INVOKED PURSUANT TO Fla. Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii). The decision of the district court involved an express interpretation of the provisions of Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution, and Amendments V and VI of the Constitution of the United States. The Florida Constitution, and its federal counterpart dictate that custodial statements are inadmissible unless the suspect s waiver was preceded by adequate warnings. The decision of the district court in the instant case was an express construction of these constitutional provisions, because purports to allows law enforcement officers to promulgate Miranda warnings extemporaneously, to translate them into a foreign language without the assistance of a certified interpreter, and to thereby proceed with interrogation without obtaining a written waiver of constitutional rights. The Petitioner submits that constitutional interpretation of 8
such magnitude cannot be undertaken absent this Court s review and approval. Therefore, the Petitioner submits that this Court has jurisdiction, pursuant to Fla. Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(ii), to undertake review of the decision rendered by the district court. Likewise, the district court s opinion expressly affects a class of state officers; i.e., police officers. The district court s decision allows all Florida officers to determine the nature and extent of the Miranda warnings given to non-english speaking suspects prior to custodial interrogation. The Petitioner therefore submits that this Court has jurisdiction, pursuant to Fla. Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iii), to review the decision of the district court in this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing arguments, and the authorities cited therein, the Petitioner respectfully requests that the Florida Supreme Court accept jurisdiction to review the ruling of the district court in this case. Respectfully submitted, JAMES S. PURDY 9
PUBLIC DEFENDER SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT Noel A. Pelella Assistant Public Defender Florida Bar No. 396664 444 Seabreeze Blvd., Suite 210 Daytona Beach, FL 32118 Phone: 386-254-3758 COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been hand delivered to: The Honorable Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 444 Seabreeze Blvd., Fifth Floor, Daytona Beach, Florida 33118, and was mailed to: Mr. Junior Joseph, D.C. No. 08027709, at the Orange County Jail, P.O. Box 4970, Orlando, FL 32802, on this 21st day of January, 2011. CERTIFICATE OF FONT I HEREBY CERTIFY that the size and style of type used in this brief is 14 point Times New Roman. Noel A. Pelella Assistant Public Defender 10