2 . It appears an issue may be whether the appellant waived his right to remain silent by voluntarily talking to the police after he had initially invoked his rights. The Florida Supreme Court has held that the prohibition against commenting on a defendant’s right to remain silent does not apply where a defendant has waived the right. See Hudson v. State, 992 So.2d 96 (Fla.2008) (“Because Hudson waived his right to remain silent, gave interviews to police, and testified at trial, he has not invoked his right to remain silent, and testimony concerning his reluctance to implicate Mejia further was not improper comment on his right not to testify.”). We express no opinion on the matter. That is an issue which may be addressed on remand. See Braddy v. State, 111 So.3d 810 (Fla.2012)
holding that when a defendant initiates contact with the police after an assertion of a sixth amendment right to counsel defendant waives that right and his or her statements are admissible holding that a request for a lawyer requires the police to cease questioning until the accused consults with his or her lawyer unless the defendant initiates further conversation holding that where a criminal defendant has voluntarily and knowingly entered into a plea agreement in which he or she waives the right to appeal the defendant is not entitled to resentencing in light of booker  holding that there is a threepart analysis for determining whether a defendant who has initiated further conversation with police after invoking his right to remain silent has waived that right the three requirements are 1 that the defendant initiates further conversation 2 that the defendant is reminded of his or her rights and 3 that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives those rights a second time holding testimony that defendant had no response to question during police interview was not impermissible comment on his constitutional right to remain silent where defendant had voluntarily waived his miranda rights