IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

DARRON O. WOODBERRY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Case No. 5D21-2737 LT Case No. 2017-305027-CFDB STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. ________________________________/ Opinion filed April 28, 2023 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Matthew M. Foxman, Judge.

Jessica J. Travis, of DefendBrevard.com, Melbourne, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Shelly v. State, 262 So. 3d 1, 16–17 (Fla. 2018).

However, similar to what our sister court did in Penna v. State, 344 So. 3d 420, 442 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), we reword and certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question of great public importance: WHERE A DEFENDANT INITIALLY INVOKED HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT MIRANDA 1 RIGHTS BUT SUBSEQUENTLY REINITIATES CONTACT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT, DOES LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATICALLY VIOLATE THOSE RIGHTS BY GENERALLY REMINDING DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHTS RATHER THAN FULLY RE-MIRANDIZING THE DEFENDANT?

WALLIS, EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).