People v. Carranza CA4/3
Filed 6/10/15 P. v. Carranza 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G049866
v. (Super. Ct. No. 12WF0666)
EDGAR GIOVANI CARRANZA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Joanne Motoike, Judge. Affirmed. Paul Stubb, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Scott C. Taylor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Edgar Giovani Carranza appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of first degree residential burglary and receiving stolen property. Carranza argues the trial court erred in admitting his extrajudicial statements in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda). We disagree and affirm the judgment. FACTS One evening about 8:00 p.m., Duc N. (Duc) pulled into his driveway. Duc saw three figures walk out of the side gate of his home. He did not see their faces, but he thought they were males with short hair. The three men left the area. Duc went into his home and found the upstairs master bedroom had been ransacked. Several items were gone, including American, Canadian, and Vietnamese currency, jewelry, a camera, a wallet containing credit cards, and a pillow case. The backdoor to the home showed signs of forced entry. About 9:25 p.m., the same evening, Officers Rodolfo Ledesma and Brandon Walthers were on patrol in a marked patrol car when they saw a car with tinted front windows. They conducted a traffic stop. There were three men in the car, including Carranza, who drove. Walthers asked Carranza for his driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance. Officers learned Carranza’s driver’s license was suspended. The officers asked the men to get out of the car, handcuffed them, and placed them in the back of the patrol car. Ledesma searched the car’s passenger compartment and found a flashlight, crowbar, and three pairs of gloves. Walthers searched the car’s trunk and found a pillow case containing jewelry, a wallet, credit cards, and foreign currency. Walthers asked Carranza who the items belonged to, and Carranza answered his girlfriend. When Walthers asked for her contact information, Carranza did not answer. Officers transported the men to the police station. Carranza was arrested for receiving stolen property, and the property was inventoried. About one week later,
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)