Orlando Canete v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, No. 13-11094 (11th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-11094 Date Filed: 05/13/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-11094 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:11-cv-62586-RNS ORLANDO CANETE, Petitioner-Appellant, versus SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (May 13, 2014) Before WILSON, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 13-11094 Date Filed: 05/13/2014 Page: 2 of 2 Orlando Canete, a Florida state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court s denial of Ground One of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The appeal presents this issue: Whether the district court erred in denying Ground One of Canete s § 2254 habeas corpus petition, which claimed that the state trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his post-arrest statements because he was not informed of his right to counsel during questioning, as required under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The district court did not err in denying Ground One of Canete s § 2254 petition. The same claim was raised on Canete s direct appeal in state court. The state appellate court s conclusion that the police officer s warnings were sufficient, under Miranda, to inform Canete of his right to have counsel present during questioning was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
