People v. Leonardo CA2/2

Filed 3/19/14 P. v. Leonardo CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B247926

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA387357) v.

RAMON LEONARDO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Drew E. Edwards, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Andy Miri and Andy Miri, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson and Brendan Sullivan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

A jury convicted appellant Ramon Leonardo of four felonies: Sodomy of a child under 10 years of age (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a));1 oral copulation and sexual penetration of a child under 10 years of age (§ 288.7, subd. (b)); and two counts of performing lewd acts upon a child (§ 288, subd. (a)). Appellant was sentenced to a total state prison term of 48 years to life. Appellant contends the trial court committed error by failing to (1) suppress statements he made to police, and (2) appoint him a Nahuatl interpreter at trial. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND Appellant’s victim was his seven-year-old stepdaughter, A. L. (A.). Because he does not challenge the evidence supporting his convictions and because the details of his crimes are thoroughly set forth by the parties, we discuss only the relevant procedural background at issue here. The Interview After he was taken into custody, appellant was interviewed by Detective Frank Ramirez of the Los Angeles Police Department. The interview was conducted in Spanish. The jury received a transcript of the interview and a video of the interview was played for the jury. Appellant’s handcuffs were removed before any questioning began. Detective Ramirez testified that he spent nearly the first hour—“a great deal of time”— asking appellant general background questions to ensure that appellant could understand him. He asked appellant such questions as his age (25), where he was from (Mexico), when he came here (19), where he worked (carwash), who he lived with (wife and stepdaughters), and if he had been in jail before (once). After concluding general questioning, Detective Ramirez read appellant each of his Miranda2 rights in Spanish. After reading each right, Detective Ramirez asked