P. v. Scott CA2/6

Filed 7/15/13 P. v. Scott CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B244735 (Super. Ct. No. 2012020660) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

MATTHEW REY SCOTT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Matthew Rey Scott appeals a judgment following his conviction of possession of a controlled substance - methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377), with a finding that he had a prior strike - a 2008 first degree burglary conviction. In response to a police officer's question during a parole search, Scott admitted that the substance in a bag in his pocket was methamphetamine. Scott moved to exclude that statement because he was not given a Miranda warning. (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.) The trial court denied his motion. We conclude the court erred. But the error is harmless given the overwhelming evidence supporting the judgment. We also conclude that an earlier statement Scott made before any police questioning was voluntary and admissible. We affirm.

FACTS On June 5, 2012, police officer Timothy Wedemeyer conducted a parole search at Scott's residence. He asked Scott to "step outside" so he could conduct a search of "his person." Scott complied. In searching Scott's right pants pocket, Wedemeyer "felt a baggie consistent with narcotics." As Wedemeyer started to pull it "out of the pocket," Scott said, "Man this is fucked up. Why are you guys here? Now I'm really fucked." Wedemeyer asked Scott, "[W]hat's in the bag?" Scott responded, "You know what it is. It's meth. Now I'm really fucked." In a pretrial motion, Scott moved to exclude all the statements he made during the parole search. The trial court denied the motion. DISCUSSION Admissibility of Scott's Initial Statements to the Police Scott contends the trial court erred by admitting the first statements he made during the parole search - "Man this is fucked up. Why are you guys here? Now I'm really fucked." (Italics added.) He claims they are inadmissible under Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436 because he did not receive a Miranda warning prior to making them. The People contend these remarks to Officer Wedemeyer were admissible because they were voluntary and he made them before any police questioning. We agree. In reviewing claims that the trial court should have excluded or suppressed statements "based upon a Miranda violation, '"we accept the trial court's resolution of disputed facts and inferences . . . if supported by substantial evidence."'" (People v. Bejasa (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 26, 35.) "'"We independently determine from the undisputed facts and the facts properly found by the trial court whether the challenged statement was illegally obtained."'" (Ibid.)