Published on:

Defendant in Burglary Case Appeals Conviction Based on Insufficient Miranda Warnings

In an April 2023 case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant took issue with a police officer’s Miranda warnings when he was arrested and charged. The defendant was originally accused of theft of property, burglary, and theft of a means of transportation. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced, and he appealed promptly. Reviewing the officer’s Miranda warnings on the day of the arrest, the higher court ultimately denied the defendant’s appeal and sustained the original convictions.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was accused of stealing a woman’s car after security footage caught him driving away from a fitness center in the vehicle. The woman worked at the fitness center, and she had hung her keys and lanyard on a hook inside the gym. The defendant later took the keys without permission, drove away, and kept the car at a neighbor’s house nearby.

After reviewing the security footage, officers arrived at the defendant’s house. They found the car, arrested the defendant, and brought him in for questioning. The officers gave the defendant Miranda warnings, which are required under the constitution to inform criminal defendants that they have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.

Eventually, the defendant was found guilty as charged, and he appealed.

The Decision

On appeal, the defendant argued that the officer’s Miranda warnings were insufficient. Specifically, the officer stated that the defendant had the right to an attorney “before” being questioned regarding the crime. Thus, said the defendant, it was not entirely clear whether he only had the right to an attorney before questioning, and not during the questioning, or whether he could ask for an attorney at any time during the interrogation.

The court looked specifically at the language the officer used. Yes, said the court, it was true that the officer used the word “before”, but this did not necessarily imply that the right to counsel stopped at the time of the questioning. The officer did not suggest that the right to have an attorney ended once questioning began, and it would be unreasonable for the defendant to assume this as true.

Therefore, the Miranda warnings were sufficient, and there was no constitutional violation during the defendant’s interrogation. The conviction and sentence were both upheld.

Are You Seeking a Top-Notch Criminal Defense Attorney in the State of Arizona?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we are dedicated to providing a strong defense in every case for every client, regardless of the severity of the charges at play. Our office will protect your rights and work hard to get the best possible outcome in your case. If you or a loved one is facing burglary charges or other serious allegations, call us today. We can be reached at 480-413-1499 for a free and confidential consultation. You can also fill out our online form to tell us about your case.

Contact Information