People v. Arias CA4/3

Filed 3/20/14 P. v. Arias CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G047751

v. (Super. Ct. No. 08NF3469)

ALEJANDRO ARIAS, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, James A. Stotler, Judge. Affirmed. Mark Alan Hart, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Kathryn Kirschbaum, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Alejandro Arias was convicted of sexually assaulting patients at the nursing home where he worked. He contends reversal is required because the police did not read him his Miranda rights (see Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436) before interviewing him about the crimes. However, the record shows appellant was not in custody for Miranda purposes at the time he was interviewed. Therefore, his statements were properly admitted into evidence, and there is no reason to disturb the judgment. FACTS On the morning of October 28, 2008, police detectives Omar Adham and Sal Enriquez went to the Anaheim Terrace Care Center to investigate allegations appellant had been sexually molesting patients he cared for there as a nursing assistant. The detectives were wearing plain clothes, with their guns and badges displayed on their belts. Upon meeting appellant, they told him he was not under arrest and did not have to speak to them. They then asked appellant if he would be willing to accompany them to the police station so they could talk to him about the allegations. Appellant said he would be willing to do so. He also agreed to let the detectives photograph him and take a DNA sample from him. After doing so, the detectives transported appellant to the Anaheim police station in an unmarked squad car. They did not give appellant the option of taking his own vehicle and meeting them there. However, before departing, they did tell him that anytime he wanted to leave they would drive him back to work. The ride to the station took about 15 minutes. Along the way, the detectives made small talk with appellant; they did not discuss the allegations with him or threaten him in any fashion. When they arrived at the station, the detectives accompanied appellant to an interview room on the second floor, in the homicide detail. The detectives chose that room because at the time, it was the only one available that had video recording capability. Appellant was seated in one corner of the room, and Adham sat between him and the door. Enriquez was present, as well, but he did not participate in the interview.