at the suppression hearing for failing to impeach the State’s witness by: (1) failing to present evidence that Derrick did not waive his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 884 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); (2) failing to challenge the inconsistencies in Detective Vaughn’s testimony; and (3) failing to cross-examine Vaughn about his interrogation techniques. As to this ineffective assistance claim, Derrick first asserts that he never waived his Miranda rights; therefore, any statements made to Detective Vaughn should have been suppressed. Derrick emphasizes that he never signed the Statement of and Waiver of Miranda Rights. However, an unsigned waiver form does not necessarily equate to a failure to waive Miranda rights. See Sliney v. State, 699 So.2d 662, 668 (Fla.1997) (<HOLDING>). Here, Detective Vaughn testified that Derrick
holding that whether waiver form satisfied miranda was immaterial because of the adequacy of the subsequent oral warning holding contradictory testimony does not invalidate a verdict holding miranda violation does not invalidate consent to search as fifth amendment only protects testimonial and communicative evidence holding that a failure to file an appeal is within the scope of the waiver because the failure does not undermine the validity of the plea or waiver holding that the failure to sign a miranda form in full does not necessarily invalidate the waiver