People v. Groody

California Court of Appeal Feb 28, 1983 No. Crim. 23982Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's confessions were voluntary and properly admitted, but that the trial court erred in concluding it lacked the discretionary authority to consider the defendant's rejection from the Youth Authority as a basis for granting probation.

Issues

Whether the defendant's confessions were induced by police promises of release or leniency.
Whether the trial court erred in determining it lacked discretion to grant probation due to the defendant's rejection from the Youth Authority.

Disposition. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court found that the confession to Abrao was not subjectively induced by Abrao, but resulted from what appellant “read into those circumstances” based on his fear of incarceration.”

“The trial court thus erred when it determined that it lacked discretionary power to grant probation on the basis of appellant’s exclusion from the Youth Authority.”

Opinion

THE COURT.

Christopher Conrad Groody appeals from a judgment of imprisonment for one count of first degree burglary and six counts of second

[358]

degree burglary. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460.) He challenges the court’s denial of his motion to suppress confessions he made to two police officers, as well as the court’s denial of probation.

On Friday, May 1, 1981, a Richmond police officer arrested appellant for a burglary. At the police station appellant waived his

Miranda

rights and admitted to Detective Loren Abrao his responsibility for the burglary. Abrao testified that he asked appellant whether he had been involved in any other burglaries or thefts in Richmond; appellant responded that he had not, but that he had been involved in some burglaries in El Sobrante. Appellant testified that Abrao had said that he knew about other burglaries respondent had committed in El Sobrante.

Abrao told appellant that El Sobrante was within the jurisdiction of the sheriff’s department, and that he would notify the department of appellant’s statement as to the El Sobrante burglaries. Appellant asked Abrao whether there was any way he could avoid being held in jail. Abrao said that he would not release appellant, but that he didn’t know what the sheriff’s department would do once he was in their custody.

On the following Monday, Detective Michael Barkhurst of the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s office interviewed appellant at the Richmond Police Department. Appellant again waived his

Miranda

rights. He asked whether Barkhurst could help him in exchange for his confessing to the burglaries. Barkhurst responded that the only thing he could do would be to talk to the district attorney about giving appellant “special consideration,” and that one possible special consideration that the district attorney might give him would be to charge him with only one burglary. Barkhurst said that as a law enforcement officer he could not make any guarantees of leniency, and could not speculate as to appellant’s chances for receiving lenient treatment. Appellant then confessed to the El Sobrante burglaries and showed Barkhurst the houses he had burglarized.

People v. Groody

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief