GRANT R. MARKSBERRY V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINIaN THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED," PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COITRT, CR 76.28 (4) (c), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOTBE CITED OR USED AS A UTHORITY IN ANY OTHER CASE INANY COURT OF THIS STATE. RENDERED : DECEMBER 21, 2006 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED $uFrr"mrW'1Urf of ' 2005-SC-0360-TG and 2005-SC-0390GRANT R. MARKSBERRY V QT APPELLANT TRANSFER FROM COURT OF APPEALS NO . 2005-CA-1034 APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE STEPHEN K. MERSHON, JUDGE 2004-CR-2025 & 2004-CR-1065 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING This appeal is from a conditional plea of guilty to thirteen counts of second degree robbery . Marksberry reserved the right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress statements he provided to the police . He was sentenced to serve 20 years in prison pursuant to a plea agreement . The sole question presented is whether the invocation of the Miranda right to counsel and to remain silent made the subsequent waiver of those rights ineffectual in the absence of counsel . Marksberry committed a string of robberies early in 2004 . In late February, he was questioned about a robbery by members of the St. Matthews police department. He was provided his Miranda rights and started to provide a statement to the police. He then invoked his right to counsel, contacted his mother who is an attorney, and was then allowed to leave. A month later he was arrested by the Louisville Metro Police and questioned about additional robberies . He was again advised of his Miranda rights . He waived those rights including his right to counsel and his right to remain silent and made several self incriminating statements regarding the various robberies . At the suppression hearing the trial judge heard testimony from two detectives, Marksberry's mother and Marksberry. The motion was denied . This appeal followed . I . WAIVER OF RIGHTS The invocation of Miranda warning rights is not an absolute . Possible literal interpretations would lead to absurd and unintended results . Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U .S. 96, 102, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed .2d 313, 320 (1975). The Miranda decision does not create a per se proscription of indefinite duration upon any further questioning by any police officer on any subject once the person in custody has indicated a desire to remain silent . Id . In the current case, almost an entire month had passed since Marksberry invoked his rights to counsel and to remain silent . The Miranda protections assume no break in custody. See McNeil v. Wisconsin , 501 U.S. 171, 111 S .Ct. 2204, 115 L.Ed .2d 158 (1991). In Edwards v. Arizona , 451 U .S. 477, 101 S .Ct. 1880, 68 L .Ed.2d 378 (1981), it was held that once the right to counsel was invoked interrogation must cease. That absolute does not apply to suspects who are not in continuous custody. See Kvqer v. Carlton , 146 F.3d 374 (6th Cir. 1998). The facts that almost a month elapsed between the two interrogations, that they were conducted by two different police departments and that they involved different crimes, invocation of rights to remain silent and to rely on counsel could not in any reasonable manner be expected to carry forward into the second interrogation . The trial judge was correct to refuse to suppress the statements . The statements were properly allowed . Marksberry was not denied any of his rights under either the Federal or State Constitutions . The judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed . All concur. COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT : Daniel T. Goyette Bruce P. Hackett Deputy Appellate Defender 200 Advocacy Plaza 719 West Jefferson Street Louisville, KY 40202 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE : Gregory D. Stumbo Attorney General of Kentucky Clint E . Watson Assistant Attorney General Criminal Appellate Division Office of the Attorney General 1024 Capital Center Drive Frankfort, KY 40601-8204

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.