People v. Miller

[230]

Opinion

THOMPSON, J.

In this appeal from a judgment of conviction of second degree burglary after a court trial, appellant contends that the trial court erred in receiving evidence of his confession arguing that it was obtained in violation of the principles enunciated in

People

v.

Fioritto,

68 Cal.2d 714, 718-719 [68 Cal.Rptr. 817, 441 P.2d 625], and was coerced. We conclude that the record supports an implied finding of the trial court to the contrary and accordingly affirm the judgment.

At about 3:20 p.m., on August 1, 1973, the home of Mr. and Mrs. Brown Meggs was burglarized. As the burglary was in process, it was witnessed by neighbors who called the police. Officers responded to the call within minutes. They apprehended two young juveniles near an automobile in front of the Meggs house. As they searched the surrounding area, a third juvenile surrendered to them. Immediately afterward, appellant, the brother of the three juveniles, also surrendered. His clothes and hair bore traces of grass and hay, indicating that he had been in hiding in the area. The arresting officers immediately advised appellant of his

Miranda

rights. He responded that he did not waive them.

Appellant was transported to the police station and was placed in custody. Two days after the arrest, Detective Albert Cauchon asked the jailer to bring appellant from his cell. Cauchon and appellant went to an interrogation room. Cauchon again advised appellant of his

Miranda

rights. He explained in detail stating, after a formal recitation of them: ‘. . . [these rights] mean that you don’t have to talk to me at all if you don’t want to . . . whatever you tell me now I can tell a judge on the stand exactly what you tell me.” Responding to appellant’s question concerning the meaning of “consult with an attorney,” Cauchon said: “. . . [it] means to talk to an attorney prior to talking to me and any consultation you might have with him or to tell him.”