State v. Roman

Citations: 983 So. 2d 731; 2008 WL 2356379Docket: 3D06-1949

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; June 11, 2008; Florida; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The State of Florida appeals a pretrial ruling that suppressed statements made by defendant Jesus Roman, who was a minor at the time. Roman, along with four adult co-defendants, faced a seven-count indictment including first-degree murder and armed robbery. He provided a detailed statement to police regarding the crime, which was recorded along with his pre-statement interview. The appellate court reverses the suppression ruling, determining that Roman voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, as evidenced by his execution of the waiver form and corroborated by the recorded statement and testimony during the suppression hearing.

The case's background reveals that on April 27, 2002, victims Ana Maria Angel and Nelson Portobanco were abducted in Miami Beach. Angel was assaulted and murdered, while Portobanco was severely injured. Investigators traced the suspects to an Orlando apartment complex using information from Portobanco and other sources. Roman, identified as one of the perpetrators, was taken into custody along with co-defendant Joel Lebron between 1:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. on April 29, 2002. They were handcuffed, searched, and transported to FDLE headquarters. Upon realizing Roman was a juvenile, police attempted to contact his mother, who initially could not speak due to distress. Roman was later taken to Miami Beach for processing, where the police reached out to his mother again, arranging for a translator to facilitate consent for questioning.

Detective Larry Marrero conducted an interview with Ms. Roman regarding her minor son after being awake for over twenty-five hours. The questioning began at 5:00 p.m. with five participants: two officers and Roman in Miami Beach, and Ms. Roman along with a bilingual FDLE agent in Orlando. Ms. Roman consented twice to the questioning of her son. Detective Marrero read her rights, asking for permission to speak without a lawyer. Roman confirmed her understanding and consent multiple times, stating "Yes" in response to questions about understanding her rights and the implications of her statements. She also acknowledged that no promises or coercion were involved. A Spanish-language printed notice of constitutional rights was provided, detailing Miranda rights, which Roman signed, witnessed by the officers. However, Detective Marrero did not fully read the rights aloud, nor did he verify Roman's ability to read Spanish. Despite this, Roman initialed the acknowledgment of her rights, including the right to court-appointed counsel, while responding to unrelated questions from the detective.

The detective failed to verbally inform Roman of his Miranda rights, and Roman's mother only received a paraphrased summary of these rights. After Roman was sworn in and answered preliminary questions about his personal information, the detective ended the call with Ms. Roman, stating he would return after the interview. Roman was a student at Mid-Florida Tech, working towards a high school equivalency diploma, and his reading proficiency in Spanish was not established. The two-hour taped questioning, which included a break, led to Roman confessing to armed robbery, attempted murder, and rape and murder, detailing the involvement of four co-defendants. There was no evidence of coercion or deception during this questioning. 

The court reviews historical facts under the "competent substantial evidence" standard and motions to suppress with a presumption of correctness, while applying constitutional principles de novo. The State argued that the trial court erred in determining that Roman was not clearly informed of his Miranda rights or that these rights were not validly waived. The questioning occurred in custody, triggering the need for four specific Miranda warnings. The State must prove that Roman's waiver of rights was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, particularly because he was a juvenile. The totality of circumstances must be considered, including how Miranda rights were administered, Roman’s age and intelligence, whether his parents were contacted, the setting of the questioning, and if he signed a written waiver.

The police's methodology in administering Miranda rights to Roman was flawed but ultimately valid, as he executed a written waiver of rights. This written waiver, while not a definitive safeguard for juveniles, has been deemed sufficient in several cases involving adults. Roman's signed waiver indicated he understood his rights, and there was no evidence of coercion or deception during the process; the officers behaved courteously, providing him refreshments and allowing bathroom access. Although the officers did not fully explain all rights verbally, the existence of a signed waiver and Roman's clear consent to waive his rights supports the validity of the waiver. Roman, at sixteen and having completed ninth grade, seemed comfortable with reading in Spanish, and there is no evidence he was not able to read the waiver form. 

Regarding parental contact, the Florida Supreme Court's ruling in Ramirez emphasizes the importance of notifying parents and allowing them to consult with their child before questioning. However, the trial court's decision to suppress evidence of Roman's confession was influenced, though not solely determined, by the officers' failure to facilitate communication with his mother prior to interrogation. The record indicates that Roman's mother was aware of the situation and had been informed of his custody, although she was initially too upset to engage with the lead detective.

Ms. Roman participated in a telephonic conference before her son’s substantive interview, with an Orlando agent providing translation. Neither she nor her son requested to terminate the interview, seek legal counsel, or have a private discussion. Ms. Roman granted the lead detective permission to question her son, affirming her son's understanding that his statements could be used against him in court. She acknowledged that the interview would proceed without her and did not object to being disconnected, contrasting her situation with the precedent in Allen v. State, where the mother sought to confer with her son during questioning.

The State complied with the parental notification requirement under section 985.207(2), Florida Statutes, and there is no constitutional mandate for police to notify a juvenile's parents prior to questioning. The confession occurred at the police station fifteen hours post-arrest, after his clothes were changed, with no indication of coercive tactics used during the interview. Roman signed a written waiver of rights, satisfying one of the five criteria for juvenile cases. The court highlighted that a valid waiver is typically upheld unless there are exceptional circumstances, noting that the Miranda warnings do not need to be delivered verbally to be effective.

The conclusion emphasizes the necessity for officers to comprehensively explain all rights when obtaining waivers, while affirming that, given the totality of the circumstances, Roman's waiver of Miranda rights was determined to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

The "Amended Order Granting Defendant, Jesus Roman's, Motion to Suppress Statements" has been reversed. The trial court noted that while the Orlando officers did not allow Ms. Roman to speak with her son before his interrogation, this was only one factor to consider in determining the suppression of a juvenile's statement. The court found it should have been communicated to the Miami officers that Ms. Roman made a specific request to speak with her son. The age of Roman is slightly unclear; although he stated he was born on September 25, 1985, indicating he would be sixteen during the interview on April 29, 2002, the court's order incorrectly states he was fifteen. Detective Marrero testified that he confirmed Roman's reading ability, but this exchange was not included in the recorded interview. Additionally, Marrero indicated that all communication with Roman was recorded. The trial court's decision to not suppress the statements was upheld, as the mother's request did not effectively invoke Roman's right to remain silent.