People v. Zarate CA5

Filed 5/14/15 P. v. Zarate CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F068262 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CRM009535, v. CRM014684, CRM023229, CRM026708) CRYSTAL JENEEN CLEVELAND ZARATE,

Defendant and Appellant. OPINION

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Ronald W. Hansen, Judge. Michael L. Pinkerton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Jeffrey Grant, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

In July 2013, a jury found appellant, Crystal Jeneen Cleveland Zarate, guilty of first degree burglary. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a).)1 The court also found a prior serious felony conviction of first degree burglary true under sections 667, subdivision (a)(1), and 1192.7, subdivision (c). Appellant was sentenced to a total of seven years in state prison for this conviction--two years for the current burglary and five consecutive years for the prior serious felony conviction enhancement. The trial court took judicial notice of the conviction and revoked probation in case Nos. CRM014684 (§ 496), CRM023229 (§ 459) and CRM009535 (a misdemeanor). Concurrent sentences were imposed for the section 496 and section 459 violations. The misdemeanor violation was dismissed. On appeal, appellant contends that her conviction must be reversed because the trial court erroneously admitted a statement she made to police officers during her arrest into evidence. She argues that her statement was obtained in violation of her constitutional rights under Miranda,2 and, if it had been suppressed, there would have been insufficient evidence to convict her of burglary. We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS Testimony at Trial On the afternoon of March 4, 2013, appellant and her friend, Robert Womack, walked by an apartment building located on 18th Street in Modesto.3 Appellant noticed a San Francisco 49ers blanket hanging from the window of one apartment and told her friends that she wanted it. The tenant of that apartment was Emily Hoshell. Appellant and her friends gained entry through a bathroom window.