People v. Carriedo CA2/6

Filed 5/20/24 P. v. Carriedo CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B327081 (Super. Ct. No. 2020010674) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

JULIO CESAR CARRIEDO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Julio Cesar Carriedo appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him of 13 felonies and misdemeanors, including receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced him to eight years eight months in state prison, including one year for receiving stolen property. Carriedo contends that conviction should be reversed because the court admitted a police officer’s testimony without waiting for a transcript of body camera footage to be prepared. He also contends the evidence supporting the conviction was obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda). We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In March 2021, Maximiliano Mendoza believed Carriedo and an accomplice named “Viviana” stole his car. He reported this to Officer Karina Hurtado. Officer Alfonso Silva subsequently stopped Mendoza’s car. Carriedo was driving. He said he did not have his identification with him and gave Officer Silva a fake name. He also said the car belonged to his friend Max. Officer Silva learned Carriedo’s true identity about a half-hour later. He cited Carriedo and let him leave. Four days later Officer Kyle Smith stopped Mendoza’s car. Carriedo was in the front passenger seat. He told the officer Mendoza had lent him the car. There was a metal rod visible inside the car. Officer Smith believed the rod indicated the car had been stolen. Officer Smith took Carriedo to the police station to be identified. While they were in Officer Smith’s squad car Carriedo said that a woman named Viviana had stolen the car about two weeks earlier. Officer Hurtado later spoke with Mendoza. He told her that he gave Carriedo a ride approximately two weeks prior. Carriedo drove away with the car. At trial, Officer Smith testified that Carriedo told him that a woman named Viviana had stolen Mendoza’s car. After Carriedo objected, the trial court held an Evidence Code1 section 402 hearing. During that hearing Officer Smith said that Carriedo’s statement about Viviana stealing Mendoza’s car was not made in response to questioning, but was initiated by Carriedo on his own volition.