North FL’s Highest Court AFFIRMS Burglary Conviction In Major Miranda Rights Case

April 23, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Theft/Property Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that because the defendant did not unequivocally invoke his right to an attorney during police questioning, law enforcement was NOT required to end the interview that ultimately produced the defendant’s confession.

CASE: Eversole v. State, 278 So.3d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)

Charge(s): Burglary, Dealing in Stolen Property

Outcome: Conviction AFFIRMED, as the defendant’s confession was not obtained in violation of his Miranda rights – so the judge properly allowed this to be used against him at trial.

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 the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) decision, 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

In the event that someone is read their Miranda rights, the SMART next move is to EXERCISE them! Tell law enforcement that you will be remaining silent – and request an attorney. Say all of this out loud, as if you simply sit there quietly, law enforcement can continue questioning you. Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010)

A common misconception about Miranda rights is the idea that someone must be notified of their rights at the moment they are put in handcuffs. But this is NOT the case. A Miranda reading (e.g. law enforcement notifying someone of their rights) must only occur once someone is in custody, but BEFORE they are subject to interrogation. For more, click here.

But what do the terms “custody” and “interrogation” actually mean? The first of these, custody, occurs when the following two conditions are satisfied:

• 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))

Interrogation occurs when law enforcement subjects someone to questioning “or its functional equivalent” that is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from them. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980)

In addition to inquiring about the alleged crime, interrogation can include confronting someone with evidence of their guilt (e.g. DNA/fingerprints) or making remarks that are designed to “set someone off” and get them to make incriminating statements. For more, click here.

If someone is read their Miranda rights in Florida, they can do either of the following:

• Invoke their rights immediately, requiring that law enforcement cease questioning and provide them an attorney (DO THIS!)
• Waive their rights and agree to speak with law enforcement (e.g. subject themselves to interrogation) without an attorney present

It is important to note a couple of things. In the event that someone waives their Miranda rights at the start of custodial interrogation, this does NOT mean their rights are permanently forfeited. Someone may invoke their rights at any point once interrogation is underway – however, they must convey their intent clearly and unambiguously. Almeida v. State, 737 So.2d 520 (Fla. 1999)

The next fact to note is that someone’s Miranda waiver (e.g. agreement not to remain silent/call an attorney at the commencement of interrogation) must be KNOWING, INTELLIGENT, AND VOLUNTARY. This means someone must have understood both of the following at the moment they chose not to invoke their rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)):

• The nature of their rights (e.g. what they were)
• The potential consequences of giving them up (e.g. that their statements could/would be used against them in court)

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 fails to read someone their rights at all before custodially interrogating them (Evans v. State, 911 So.2d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005))
• 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 the significance of Miranda (e.g. “This is all a formality…”)

In the event that someone believes their Miranda waiver was not KNOWING, INTELLIGENT, AND VOLUNTARY, an experienced and aggressive Florida criminal defense attorney can file a motion to suppress on their behalf (before trial).

If this is granted, the defendant’s post-Miranda statements (including confessions) are rendered inadmissible in a court of law. Since this means they will never be heard by the jury, a successful motion to suppress can improve the likelihood of a case resolving in a defendant’s favor. To learn more, click here.

Note: At a Miranda suppression hearing, the State has to prove by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence that the defendant’s decision to waive their rights/speak with law enforcement WAS knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. For more, click here.

In one major Miranda rights case heard by Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal (Tallahassee and North FL’s highest court), a defendant was notified of his rights prior to the start of custodial interrogation. He waived his rights and agreed to speak with law enforcement.

About five minutes into the interview, the defendant asked the interrogating detective whether, if they attempted to contact his lawyer, it would be possible to “get him out there” (e.g. to the jail).

The detective added that if the lawyer was contacted, the interview would likely be rescheduled due to him potentially being unavailable to immediately come to the jail. The detective said: “I don’t know if he can drop what he’s doing and come straight here, or if he’s available right now or available later.”

The defendant conveyed dissatisfaction with his attorney, to which the interrogating detective replied: “If you’re paying him to be your lawyer you can cancel that and ask for a different one.” The defendant declined to do so, continuing the interview and eventually confessing.

On appeal to the 1st DCA, the defendant contended that the interrogating detective violated his Miranda rights by failing to terminate questioning upon the defendant asking to “get a hold” of his lawyer to determine if he could “get out” to the jail. 

Echoing a pretrial motion to suppress he filed, the defendant argued that because his subsequent statements were the “fruit” of an unlawful interrogation, the 1st DCA was required to REVERSE his conviction.

However, the 1st DCA disagreed, AFFIRMING the defendant’s convictions on the grounds that his Miranda rights were not violated. But why? Let’s take a look at that case – Eversole v. State, 278 So.3d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) – and discuss what it means for those in Florida concerned about their Miranda rights.

KEY CASE: Eversole v. State, 278 So.3d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)

In Eversole, the defendant (Eversole) was charged with burglary and dealing in stolen property. Both are very serious felonies. After he was convicted, he appealed on the basis that a violation of his Miranda rights and the erroneous admission of his incriminating statements at trial led to his convictions – requiring REVERSAL as a matter of law. At trial, the following was revealed:

• Eversole was booked at the local jail to await trial on the charges
• He initially chose NOT to speak with law enforcement
• Seven weeks after he was taken into custody, Eversole told a deputy at the jail he wanted to speak with police
• An interrogating detective (Detective Watson) sat down with him and read his Miranda rights again
• Eversole waived his rights and agreed to speak 
• About 5 minutes into the interrogation, Eversole said the following in reference to his attorney: “If we were to try to get a hold of Travis Koon and get him out here do you think we could get him out here?”
• The interrogating detective replied: “Yeah, that’s up to you. If you want to try to get a hold of him. What he’s probably gonna do is, depending on his schedule, he may want to reschedule you to a time based on his schedule, so we would have to see about that. I don’t know … Like I don’t know Travis’ schedule. I don’t know if he can drop what he’s doing and come straight out here or if he’s available right now or available later. So I don’t know.”
• Eversole expressed unhappiness with his lawyer’s representation, to which Detective Watson responded: “If you’re unhappy with your lawyer, and you feel like you’ve got cause to do that, you can certainly ask the Court for a different one. … If you’re paying him to be your lawyer you can cancel that and ask for a different one.”
• Eversole ultimately continued speaking with the detective, resulting in his confession

Eversole filed a pretrial motion to suppress his post-Miranda statements, arguing that they were unlawfully obtained because of his unequivocal request for counsel (“If we were to try to get a hold of Travis Koon and get him out here do you think we could get him out here?”). 

The judge DISAGREED with the defendant’s characterization of the question as an “unequivocal invocation,” and DENIED the motion to suppress. The jury heard Eversole’s confession – and he was found guilty on all counts.

Appealing to the 1st DCA, Eversole argued that his motion to suppress should have been granted because:

• He made an unequivocal request for counsel, and
• Even if his request was equivocal, the detective did not provide a simple, straightforward reply to his question about his right to counsel (required by Almeida v. State, 737 So.2d 520 (Fla. 1999))

However, the 1st DCA DISAGREED and AFFIRMED Eversole’s convictions. First rejecting the argument that Eversole unequivocally requested his attorney, the 1st DCA wrote:

“Here, Eversole argues that he unequivocally requested counsel when he said, “If we were to try to get a hold of Travis Koon and get him out here do you think we could get him here?” But statements such as “maybe I should talk to a lawyer” are not requests for counsel. Davis, 512 U.S. at 462, 114 S.Ct. 2350. These types of statements do not require the police to ask clarifying questions as long as the suspect was properly made aware of his rights. Spivey v. State, 45 So. 3d 51, 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). “The suspect must ‘articulate his desire to cut off questioning with sufficient clarity that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be an assertion of the right to remain silent.’ ” Id. at 54 (quoting State v. Owen, 696 So. 2d 715, 718 (Fla .1997)). Eversole’s question about contacting Koon was a conditional and equivocal request because it did not clearly express Eversole’s desire to call his attorney and halt the interrogation or that he would not answer any questions without his attorney present.”

The 1st DCA found that the detective gave a “simple and straightforward” answer to Eversole’s question about whether his lawyer could be reached:

“Here, Eversole asked, “If we were to try to get a hold of Travis Koon and get him out here do you think we could get him here?” The detectives’ responses were simple, straightforward and informed Eversole that he had the right to contact his attorney. The officers then conveyed the possibility that they might have to reschedule the interview for a different time based on Koon’s schedule. Neither officer evaded Eversole’s questions nor tried to steamroll Eversole. Instead, when Eversole asked his questions, they stopped the interview and provided simple and straightforward answers. Under these facts, the officers had a right to continue with the interrogation until Eversole clearly and unequivocally expressed his desire to end the interview or contact counsel. Because Eversole did not unequivocally invoke his right to counsel, and the detectives provided straightforward and simple answers to Eversole’s questions about his rights, the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress. Affirmed.”

Put simply, because the interrogating detective gave a “simple and straightforward” answer to Eversole when he asked if his attorney could be brought to the jail, Eversole’s Miranda rights were NOT violated. 

In sum, Eversole v. State, 278 So.3d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding Miranda rights. The 1st DCA (Tallahassee and North FL’s highest court) found that:

• Eversole’s question as to whether detectives “could” get his attorney out there was an EQUIVOCAL invocation of the right to counsel after he waived his Miranda rights
• This did not require the interrogative detective to end questioning – it only required that he answer Eversole in a “simple and straightforward” manner
• The detective’s reply was simple and straightforward, as it acknowledged that Eversole had the right to an attorney – but that the interrogation may require rescheduling if Mr. Koon was unavailable at the time
• Nevertheless, Eversole decided to continue the interview, and ultimately confessed
• As a result, the trial judge DID NOT err by denying Eversole’s motion to suppress
• Since the jury hearing his confession was NOT error (because the motion to suppress was properly denied), Eversole’s convictions were AFFIRMED

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Eversole v. State, 278 So.3d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), as it reveals how Tallahassee and North Florida’s highest court evaluates claims of Miranda rights violations.

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