court in regard to one of his two claims and affirm without comment in regard to the other claim. In his motion, Wilford alleges that his defense counsel was' ineffective both for failing to file a motion to suppress his statements made to law enforcement and for failing at trial to object to the admissibility of these statements. Wilford asserts his counsel -should have filed a motion to suppress alleging both inadequate Miranda warnings and a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The limited record shows that law enforcement may have given Wilford inadequate Miranda warnings by not informing him that anything he said could be used against him in a court of law or something equivalent. See Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 201-02, 109 S.Ct. 2875, 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989) (<HOLDING>). See also Thompson v. State, 595 So.2d 16, 17
holding that although defendants voluntarily given initial statement was inadmissible because of miranda violation subsequent statement made after careful miranda warnings were given and waiver was obtained was admissible holding that selfinitiated statements volunteered after miranda warnings had been given are admissible recognizing a public safety exception to the requirement that miranda warnings be given in order to use a suspects statement as evidence against him at trial holding that the warnings in their totality satisfied miranda holding that miranda warnings do not have to be given in the exact form stated in the miranda opinion as long as an effective equivalent is given