People v. Richardson CA1/2

Filed 12/30/13 P. v. Richardson CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A135298 v. BRETT LEE RICHARDSON, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 051006915) Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Brett Lee Richardson guilty as charged of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187), discharging a firearm from a vehicle (Pen. Code, former § 12034), and five counts of attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 664). Various firearm-related enhancements were found true by the jury, and one prior prison term enhancement was found true by the court. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for an aggregate term of 52 years and six months to life. On this timely appeal, the sole claim of error advanced by defendant is that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of custodial statements made following his arrest for an unrelated matter. 1 That motion was made on two grounds. The first was that the statements were elicited in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 because defendant did not expressly waive those rights prior to answering questions. The second was that “The defendant’s confession was involuntary.”

1 In his opening brief, defendant also pressed a claim of sentencing error. However, after considering the Attorney General’s response, defendant withdrew this claim.

1

Defendant argued that he had been the victim of coercive conduct by law enforcement in that the interrogating officers had made numerous false statements about the strength and the nature of the evidence linking defendant to the murder. Defendant has chosen not to renew the Miranda aspect of his motion, contending only that his statements were involuntary. Defendant’s motion was the subject of a two-day hearing. The court heard testimony from Officer Deplitch who interviewed defendant, 2 and reviewed an audiotape and transcript of the interview.3 Following that, the court denied defendant’s motion in an exhaustive ruling covering both law and fact that occupies more than 15 pages of reporter’s transcript. With respect to the first ground of defendant’s motion, the court concluded that defendant “did in fact understand his Miranda rights” and “waived his . . . Miranda rights by his conduct on the date of the interview.” Defendant has elected not to contest this ruling on appeal. The second ground of defendant’s motion was also rejected: “I do find under the totality of the circumstances that the officers’ false claims regarding the evidence . . . would not have likely induced a statement that was involuntary or unreliable. In other words, the type of additional information they provided beyond what they truly had in the way of evidence was not likely to cause an innocent man to falsely confess to having committed the crimes.” “I listened carefully to the argument that it was the number and repetition of the false statements . . . that would render the defendant’s confession involuntary. . . . I don’t find that repetition was likely to induce a false or unreliable confession.