¶1Robbery, first degree; sentence: twenty years’ imprisonment.
¶2The appellant’s inculpatory statement was admitted into evidence over his motion to suppress and his objection that the Miranda
“Due to the Miranda predicate laid below, the State respectfully declines to submit a brief in the above styled case.”
¶3The purported Miranda warning given to the appellant in the instant case did not apprise him “that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479, 86 S.Ct. at 1630. Such omission rendered the warning defective. Marcus v. State, 50 Ala.App. 526, 280 So.2d 786, 291 Ala. 350, 280 So.2d 793 (1973); Square v. State, 283 Ala. 548, 219 So.2d 377 (1968). The appellant’s motion to suppress the statement should have been granted.
¶4REVERSED AND REMANDED.
¶5. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).