Leshannon Jerome Shelly, Petitioner v. State of Florida, Respondent.

Summary

The court held that the governing standard for a suspect who invokes the right to counsel or silence and later allegedly resumes communication requires initiation, a renewed advisement of rights, and a knowing and voluntary waiver. Shelly unequivocally invoked his right to silence, but the detective continued interrogation and used statements reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response, making the later confession inadmissible and the error harmful. Justice Lawson, dissenting, would have dismissed the review for lack of express-and-direct conflict jurisdiction.