FL’s First DCA REVERSES 1st Degree Murder Conviction Over Miranda Rights Violation

April 16, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Violent Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that interrogating officers violated the defendant’s Miranda rights when they failed to clarify he had the right to an attorney even if he could not afford one.

CASE: Chavers v. State, 115 So.3d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)

Charge(s): First-Degree Murder

Outcome: Conviction REVERSED, as officers violated the defendant’s Miranda rights when they failed to clarify that he had the right to an attorney even though he couldn’t afford one.

Miranda Rights in Florida

In Florida and throughout the U.S., someone must be advised of their Miranda rights before they are subject to custodial interrogation by law enforcement.

These rights, per Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), include:

• The right to remain silent
• The fact that anything they say can and will be used against them in court
• The right to an attorney, including to have one present during police questioning
• The fact that if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for them

If someone is read their rights, the SMART next move is to exercise them! Tell law enforcement that you will be remaining silent and are requesting an attorney. Do NOT simply sit there quietly, as if you fail to announce that you are invoking your rights, the police legally have permission to keep questioning you. Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010)

Though many believe that someone must be read their Miranda rights any time they’re placed in handcuffs by law enforcement, this is not the case. A Miranda rights reading is only required if a person is in CUSTODY, before they are subject to INTERROGATION. For more, click here.

For a person to be considered in custody for Miranda purposes, both of the following must be true:

• The suspect must have their freedom of movement constrained in a manner consistent with a formal arrest (this includes a formal arrest)
• A reasonable person in the suspect’s position would not feel free to leave (J.G. v. State, 883 So.2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004))

For a person to be interrogated by law enforcement, this requires that the police subject someone to questioning (or its “functional equivalent”) that is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from a suspect. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980). For more on interrogation, click here.

When someone is taken into custody and is read their Miranda rights before interrogation begins, they have two options:

• Invoke their rights by telling law enforcement they will be remaining silent/requesting an attorney (DO THIS!)
• Waive their Miranda rights and agree to speak with law enforcement without an attorney present

If someone waives their Miranda rights at the start of interrogation, this DOES NOT mean that they are forfeited forever. A suspect can invoke their rights at any time during interrogation – however, this must be unequivocal and unambiguous (e.g. “I think I may want a lawyer” does not require law enforcement to end questioning). For more, click here.

In the event that someone WAIVES their Miranda rights, this must have been done knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily for their post-Miranda statements (including confessions) to be admissible against them in a court of law.

For a Miranda waiver to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, the following things must be true of it:

• The suspect/defendant understands the nature of their rights
• The suspect/defendant understands the potential consequences of not exercising them (e.g. that their statements can and will be used against them in a court of law)

Examples of situations where law enforcement acts in a manner that renders a Miranda waiver (and subsequent confession) involuntary include:

• Law enforcement does not read someone their full Miranda rights (e.g. omits one or more rights when notifying a suspect of them, such as not disclosing the right to an attorney)
• Law enforcement reads someone their rights in a language that is not their own (e.g. reads a clear Spanish-speaker their rights in English)
• Law enforcement uses threats, coercion, or trickery to get someone to waive their rights – even once they have chosen to exercise them
• Law enforcement minimizes Miranda (e.g. “This is all just a formality…”)

Important: To learn more about when a Miranda waiver is (and IS NOT) considered knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, click here.

In the event someone believes their Miranda waiver was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, an experienced and aggressive Florida criminal defense attorney can (and should) file a pretrial motion to suppress on their behalf.

Once such a motion is submitted, the trial judge has a choice:

• Grant the motion, resulting in the suppression of the defendant’s post-arrest statements (rendering them inadmissible in a court of law)
• Deny the motion to suppress, finding the State has proven by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence that the Miranda waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary

If a trial judge DENIES a pretrial motion to suppress and the defendant is convicted (after their post-Miranda statements, such as confessions, are used against them), they are likely to appeal their conviction and argue that:

• The trial judge erred in denying their motion to suppress, and
• The error was not harmless (e.g. may have impacted the jury’s verdict), requiring that the defendant receive a new trial

In one major case heard by Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal (Tallahassee and North FL’s highest court), a suspect was accused of first-degree murder. He was read his rights – but did not clearly understand that he had the right to have an attorney present during questioning despite the fact that he could not afford one.

Rather than making clear to the suspect that he had the right to an attorney regardless of financial status, the interrogating officer “brushed over” this (e.g. failed to clarify that the suspect still had the right to an attorney). The suspect confessed – and he was convicted after his confession was used against him at trial.

On appeal, the suspect/defendant argued that the judge erred by denying his motion to suppress, which he filed before trial. He claimed the officer had a duty to clarify his right to an attorney regardless of financial status. 

Since he may have invoked that right if he knew he could have an attorney even though he could not afford one, the defendant urged the 1st DCA to REVERSE his conviction, because admission of his confession at trial may have impacted the jury’s verdict (e.g. contributed to the jury finding him guilty).

The 1st DCA AGREED, REVERSING the defendant’s conviction on the basis that his Miranda rights were violated. Let’s take a look at that case – Chavers v. State, 115 So.3d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) – and discuss what it means for your Miranda rights in Florida.

KEY CASE: Chavers v. State, 115 So.3d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)

In Chavers, the defendant (Chavers) was arrested and charged with first-degree murder. He was ultimately convicted after his confession was introduced into evidence (e.g. shown to the jury). According to the 1st DCA, the following facts were revealed in the trial record:

• On March 4, 2010, the victim was shot and killed while driving away from an encounter with Chavers and another teenager
• Chavers was 17 years old at the time of the incident
• Chavers was arrested the following day and taken to a police station for interrogation by a law enforcement officer
• Before questioning, the officer read Chavers his Miranda rights
• Chavers responded “uh-huh” after each right was read, indicating acknowledgment
• When the officer explained that a lawyer could be appointed if he could not afford one, Chavers said: “I don’t have no lawyer, so … I don’t even have no money to call a lawyer.”
• The officer responded: “Okay. But, understand, you know, you could have one,” and then asked whether Chavers understood his rights
• The officer did not further clarify that Chavers had the right to appointed counsel even without money
• Chavers indicated he understood the rights and initialed the Miranda waiver form
• The interrogation proceeded, Chavers confessed, and this was recorded on DVD (which was later shown to the jury at trial)

Before trial, Chavers filed a motion to suppress – arguing that he did not understand he had the right to an attorney regardless of ability to pay when he waived his rights. The trial judge denied the motion, and Chavers was convicted after tape of his confession was played for the jury.

On appeal to the 1st DCA, Chavers renewed his argument that the interrogating officer failed to clarify his right to counsel regardless of financial status – invalidating his Miranda waiver. 

Chavers further argued that because the introduction of his confession was not “harmless error” (e.g. may have contributed to the jury finding him guilty), he was entitled to a new trial. 

The 1st DCA agreed with Chavers, reversing his first-degree murder conviction and remanding the matter to the lower court for a new trial. Finding Chavers did not waive his rights knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily (and that the judge’s error in admitting them was not “harmless”), the 1st DCA wrote:

“The trial court’s partial denial of Appellant’s motion to suppress his statement to law enforcement must be reversed because Appellant’s right to the presence of counsel for the interrogation was not validly waived. “Before a defendant’s self-incriminating statements may be admitted into evidence, ‘a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel.’ ” U.S. v. Rodriguez, 518 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 475, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)). This is especially true where the suspect is a juvenile.”

“Here, the State did not meet its heavy burden to show a knowing and intelligent waiver of Appellant’s right to appointed counsel because Appellant’s statement that he did not have the money for a lawyer indicated that he did not intelligently understand he had the right to appointed counsel even if he could not afford one. … Because the officer’s response to Appellant’s statement did not clarify Appellant’s right to the presence of counsel regardless of his lack of financial resources, Appellant’s waiver of that right was not valid. Accordingly, Appellant’s subsequent statements placing him in the victim’s vehicle on the evening in question and other incriminating statements should have been suppressed. The State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless because publication of the portions of the DVD at issue could have contributed to the jury’s verdict on both counts. … The judgment and sentence are reversed and this case is remanded for a new trial.”

In sum, Chavers v. State, 115 So.3d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding Miranda rights – in particular, when a Miranda rights waiver is considered knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The 1st DCA found that:

• Chavers did not understand that he had the right to an attorney regardless of ability to pay at the time he waived his rights
• The interrogating officer failed to clarify that Chavers could have an attorney present during questioning even if he could not afford one
• Because Chavers may have invoked his right to an attorney if he had a full understanding of his rights, his Miranda waiver was NOT knowing, intelligent, and voluntary
• As a result, the trial judge erred by denying Chavers’s motion to suppress
• Since the erroneous admission of Chavers’s confession may have impacted the jury’s verdict (e.g. contributed to Chavers being found guilt), it was not harmless error
• Thus, Chavers’s conviction was REVERSED and he received a new trial

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Chavers v. State, 115 So.3d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), as it makes clear that the failure to fully inform a suspect/defendant of their right to counsel violates their Miranda rights – and requires SUPPRESSION of their post-Miranda statements (rendering them inadmissible in court).

If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida in a case involving a Miranda waiver that was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary, it is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This decision could make the difference in whether or not someone faces a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting criminal charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share