People v. Arias CA4/3

Filed 8/12/15 People 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G050380

v. (Super. Ct. No. 13CF3749)

SERGIO ANTONIO ARIAS, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregg Prickett, Judge. Affirmed. Robert L.S. Angres, 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 Meredith S. White, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

The People’s complaint charged defendant with felony second degree commercial burglary and felony theft with a prior conviction. At the preliminary hearing on the complaint, Detective Anthony Nguyen testified to the following: On the morning of November 27, 2013, Robert Mayorga, a security officer at a store, saw defendant remove security tops from two bottles of liquor. Defendant concealed the bottles in his clothes and left the store without paying for the items. Outside the store, Mayorga and his co-worker Ryan Rose detained defendant, retrieved the two bottles of liquor, and escorted him back into the store. Detective Nguyen arrived at the store. Defendant was in the store’s security office and was not handcuffed. In the office were defendant, Mayorga, Rose, Nguyen, and Nguyen’s partner. Nguyen told defendant he was not under arrest and that Nguyen just wanted to hear his side of the story. Nguyen did not read defendant his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. Defendant told Nguyen he went into the store with intentions to steal the bottles of liquor and sell them for $10 each. The total value of the two bottles of liquor was about $70. The court held defendant to answer on both charges. The People’s information charged defendant with felony second degree 1 commercial burglary (count 1; Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b)) and felony theft with a prior conviction (count 2; §§ 666, subd. (b), 484, subd. (a), 488). The information also alleged defendant had suffered a prior strike conviction as well as a prior prison conviction. (§§ 667, subds. (d) & (e)(1), 667.5, subd. (b), 1170.12, subds. (b) & (c)(1).) In January 2014, defendant pleaded guilty to both counts and admitted he had suffered a prior strike conviction and a prior prison conviction. At the sentencing hearing, the court struck for purposes of sentencing defendant’s prior strike conviction in the interests of justice pursuant to section 1385. As