Halm v. State

WALLACE, Judge.

Charles Edward Halm raises four issues in his appeal of his judgment and sentence for first-degree murder. All of these issues are without merit, and we affirm Halm’s judgment and sentence. However, we write to address Halm’s argument that he was improperly subjected to custodial interrogation by a state agent after he had invoked his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

While Halm was in jail on unrelated charges, two homicide detectives employed by the Pinellas County Sheriffs Office attempted to interrogate him about the brutal…