North FL’s Highest Court Affirms Murder Conviction Due to Valid Waiver of Miranda Rights

March 5, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

Case Summary

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal held that a defendant found guilty of murder knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, requiring that his conviction be affirmed.

CASE: Thomas v. State, 351 So.3d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)

Charge(s): First-Degree Murder

Outcome: Conviction AFFIRMED – as the defendant waived his Miranda rights knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily

About Miranda Rights in Florida

In Florida and throughout the U.S., Miranda rights function as a key constitutional protection for defendants who are subject to custodial interrogation by law enforcement. Per the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) decision, Miranda rights include:

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

If someone is read their Miranda rights by law enforcement, the smart next move is to exercise them. Tell the police you will be remaining silent and request an attorney. If you simply sit there quietly and say nothing, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that officers may continue questioning you. Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010)

It is commonly believed that someone must be read their Miranda rights any time that they are stopped or questioned by law enforcement. However, this is only required if a suspect is subject to custodial interrogation (after someone is in custody but before interrogation begins). Moore v. State, 798 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)

For purposes of Miranda, custody occurs when a suspect’s freedom of movement is restricted consistent with a formal arrest – and when a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would not feel free to leave. To learn more about custody, click here.

Interrogation occurs when law enforcement engages in questioning (or its functional equivalent, such as making accusations) 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.

If someone is about to be subject to custodial interrogation and is read their Miranda rights, they have two options:

• Exercise their right to remain silent/to an attorney (GOOD CHOICE!)
• Waive their rights and agree to speak with law enforcement, without counsel present

In the event that someone elects to waive their rights (e.g. not exercise them) and speak with law enforcement, that waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. A knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver occurs when a suspect understands the nature of their rights and the potential consequences of not invoking them (Miranda). For more, click here.

There are many reasons why someone’s Miranda waiver may be determined by a Florida court to have not been knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Examples may 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 minimizes Miranda (e.g. “This is just a formality…”)
• 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 (State v. Brown, 592 So.2d 308 (Fla. 3d. DCA 1991))

If there are questions surrounding the legal validity of a Miranda waiver, an experienced and aggressive criminal defense attorney is likely to file a pretrial motion to suppress on the basis that the defendant’s confession was unlawfully obtained. 

If this is granted, a defendant’s post-Miranda statements (including confessions) are inadmissible in a court of law. This means the incriminating statements can’t be used against the defendant at trial – which can fundamentally change the trajectory of a criminal case.

Sometimes, a criminal defense attorney will file a motion to suppress a defendant’s post-Miranda statements before trial. If this is denied on the basis that a defendant’s waiver was voluntary, any  incriminating post-Miranda statements may be introduced into evidence (e.g. they’re admissible in a court of law).

However, even if this motion is denied, it preserves the issue for appeal. This means that in some cases, a Florida appellate court (DCA) may analyze the circumstances surrounding the Miranda waiver and decide the trial judge got it wrong. If the admission of a defendant’s confession was not harmless error, this requires reversal of their conviction(s). To learn more, click here.

In some cases, Florida’s District Courts of Appeal will find a Miranda violation and reverse a conviction. But in other cases, a defendant’s conviction will be affirmed on the basis that their Miranda waiver was indeed valid (e.g. knowing, intelligent, voluntary) – and their post-arrest statements did not require suppression at the trial level.

One such case involving the affirmance of a defendant’s conviction was decided by Tallahassee and North Florida’s highest court in 2022 (Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal). There, the 1st DCA found that the defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress (e.g. to keep their confession out of evidence) was properly denied – resulting in the defendant’s murder conviction being affirmed. 

Let’s take a look at that case – Thomas v. State, 351 So.3d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) – and what it means for defendants moving to suppress their post-Miranda statements in Florida.

KEY CASE: Thomas v. State, 351 So.3d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)

In Thomas, the defendant (Thomas) was charged with first-degree murder. He was convicted and appealed to the 1st DCA.

At trial, it was revealed Thomas (nicknamed Trae Shorty) broke into a home early in the morning with three people inside. Thomas threw a large rock through the living room window, waking up the residents. Thomas then began to fire into the home, fatally wounding one resident (Z.B.) and injuring two others.

One of the victims recognized Thomas from social media and alerted law enforcement. Thomas was ultimately arrested and taken into the police station for custodial interrogation. According to the 1st DCA, the following exchange occurred between Thomas and officers before he waived his Miranda rights:

“At the start of the interview, Thomas told the detectives that he was nineteen years old, he was in twelfth grade, he could read and write English, he was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, he was not taking any medications, he did not need glasses or contacts, and he had never seen a mental health counselor. The detectives then showed Thomas a form listing his constitutional rights. To prove that Thomas could read English, the detectives asked him to read the form’s first sentence aloud, at which point Thomas read out, “You have the following rights under the United States Constitution.” The detectives then went through the form with Thomas: 

THE DETECTIVES: Okay. I’m going to read the rest of it out loud to you. Just give me a verbal yes that you understand. Okay? You do not have to make a statement or say anything. You understand? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. 

THE DETECTIVES: Okay. Anything you say can be used against you in court. 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. 

THE DETECTIVES: All right. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before you make a statement or before any questions are asked of you and to have them with you during any questioning. Understand? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. 

THE DETECTIVES: Okay. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish. If you do answer questions, you have the right to stop answering questions at any time and consult with a lawyer. 

THE DEFENDANT: All right. 

THE DETECTIVES: You understand? All right. Just sign right there for me, if you mind.
Thomas signed the form certifying that he understood his constitutional rights.”

Before trial, Thomas filed a motion to suppress his post-Miranda statements (e.g. his subsequent confession to the murder). Though he conceded officers notified him of his rights, he argued:

• Officers impermissibly downplayed the significance of his Miranda rights, citing Ross v. State, 45 So.3d 403 (Fla. 2010)
• Detectives told Thomas to give them a “verbal yes” indicating he understood his rights and did not explicitly give him the option of saying “no,” making his subsequent waiver “involuntary”

Relying upon the video tape of Thomas’s interrogation, the trial judge denied Thomas’s motion. His post-Miranda statements were played for the jury at trial – and he was convicted.

On appeal to Florida’s 1st DCA (Tallahassee and North Florida’s highest court), Thomas argued the trial judge erred as a matter of law in failing to suppress his post-Miranda statements. Since this was not harmless error (according to Thomas), this required reversal of his conviction and a new trial.

However, the 1st DCA disagreed – affirming the trial judge’s decision and the guilty verdict. The 1st DCA first addressed Thomas’s claim the officers “minimized” his Miranda rights:

“Thomas relies on Ross v. State, 45 So. 3d 403 (Fla. 2010) to argue that his waiver was not knowingly made because the detectives improperly downplayed the significance of the Miranda rights. In Ross, the police did not administer the Miranda warnings until several hours into the interrogation. … When the police did administer the warnings, they downplayed their importance by asserting they were only a “matter of procedure” and implied that remaining silent was futile because the police could still use the defendant’s earlier admissions against him …The police also lulled the defendant into a false sense of security by telling him he was not under arrest even though they already had probable cause to arrest him.”

“None of those factors are present in Thomas’s case. The detectives exclusively referred to the Miranda warnings as Thomas’s “constitutional rights,” and they never told him that he was not under arrest. Furthermore, the analysis in Ross was in the context of the Miranda warnings being administered after the police had spent time interrogating the suspect. … The police did not question Thomas before delivering the Miranda warnings, so the problems associated with delivering the warnings midstream do not exist in this case.”

The 1st DCA then rejected Thomas’s argument that his Miranda waiver was invalid because he was not “given the option” to answer “no” when the detective asked if he understood his rights:

“Thomas, once again relying on Ross, argues that the waiver of his rights was not voluntary because the detectives instructed him to “just give me a verbal yes that you understand” without giving him to the option to say “no.” But this argument does not hold up under the totality of the circumstances test. When the detective was reading Thomas his rights, he paused several times to ask, “you understand?” or “understand?” These are questions to which Thomas could have answered “no,” not an instruction for him to say “yes.” Throughout the process, Thomas answered each question by nodding his head and saying he understood. Similarly, the detective’s request for Thomas to sign the form by saying “just sign on it there for me, if you mind” cannot be viewed as an order for Thomas to sign the form when viewed under the totality of the circumstances.”

Concluding their evaluation of the validity of Thomas’s Miranda waiver, the 1st DCA held that the “totality of the circumstances” supported a finding that his decision not to exercise his rights was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary:

“The other facts in the record support the trial court’s conclusion that Thomas’s waiver was knowingly made. Before delivering the Miranda warnings, the detectives confirmed that Thomas could read and write English, had at least a twelfth grade education, was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and had never seen a mental health counselor. The detectives then gave him a written form containing a full and accurate description of his rights and read each of them out loud. The State also presented testimony that Thomas had been told his rights during a police interrogation in a different matter and that he spoke to officers in that matter too… Under the totality of the circumstances, the trial court was correct to say that Thomas’s waiver was knowingly and intelligently made.”

In sum, Thomas v. State, 351 So.3d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law on Miranda rights and the voluntariness of Miranda waivers in Florida. The 1st DCA found that:

• Officers did not “minimize” Thomas’s Miranda rights (unlike Ross), as they notified him that these were his “constitutional rights” and did not tell him he was not under arrest in an effort to get Thomas to waive them 
• Thomas was sufficiently educated, was read his rights before, was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and did not have difficulty understanding what officers were saying
• Thomas could have easily answered “no” when he was asked if he understood his rights – he was not instructed to say “yes” (just told to say “yes” if he understood)
• Because the “totality of the circumstances” supported a finding that Thomas’s Miranda waiver was valid, his conviction was affirmed

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Thomas v. State, 351 So.3d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022), as it is an example of a case that the State may rely upon to resist claims that a defendant’s Miranda waiver was invalid in Tallahassee and North Florida.

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