P.v . Rendon

Filed 2/21/07  P.v . Rendon CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County.  Gary R. Orozco and Wayne R. Ellison, Judges, and William Stone, Judge.^* 

            Grace Lidia Suarez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Stanley Cross, Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General, Lloyd G. Carter and Louis M. Vasquez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

            Having been charged with murder involving the personal use of a firearm (Pen. Code,^[1] §§  187, subd. (a), 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)), appellant Bertoldo Gonzales Rendon stands convicted, following a court trial, of voluntary manslaughter involving the personal use of a firearm (§§  192, subd. (a), 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)).  Sentenced to a total term of six years in prison, he now appeals, raising numerous claims of error that present one central question:  Was his motion for a continuance, made four days before the start of trial, erroneously denied?  For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.

FACTS^[2]

I

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

A.        The Shooting

            In August 1980, appellant and Israel Torres were both employed by West Ridge Farming Company at its operation in the Cantu Creek area of Fresno County.  Torres, who had only worked there a few days, was a hand laborer, while appellant, who had worked there for three or four years, was a tractor operator.

            On the evening of August 2, appellant informed William Munger, the ranch foreman, that he had to go to Mexico.  Munger could smell alcohol on appellant's breath and, when they shook hands, appellant was very limp.  Appellant then drove away. 

            That evening, Torres's body was found face-down on a dirt road near worker housing in the Cantu Creek area.  His blood-alcohol level was .13 percent, and he had been shot four times.  The cause of death was a gunshot wound through the heart.  Five spent .30-caliber shell casings were found just south of the body's location.

            Appellant, who lived in the labor camp, was identified as the shooter.  A search of his house revealed a box of live .30-caliber rounds in plain view on top of a dresser.  Appellant's fingerprints were found on the box.  His abandoned vehicle was located about a quarter of a mile away.  However, law enforcement officers were unable to locate him or the rifle they learned that he owned.  As a result, Fresno County Sheriff's Detective Reyna obtained a photograph of appellant and produced a wanted information bulletin.^[3] 

B.        The Confession

            On October 4, 2004, El Paso (Texas) County Sheriff's Detective Pineda was working with a multi-agency fugitive warrant task force when he contacted appellant at the Bridge of Americas, a port of entry between El Paso and Juarez, Mexico.  Appellant had been stopped by one of the immigration officers.  When Pineda arrived at approximately 2:00 p.m., a United States marshal was explaining that there was a case pending in California from 1980, and asking if appellant was the person who was being sought in that case.^[4]  Appellant said it was his name, but that he had nothing to do with California and did not know anything about it.  Pineda then identified himself and said he was investigating the California case and wanted to see if appellant was the person who was wanted.  He gave appellant a chair and helped him sit down, then asked if he was the person.  He was very gentle with appellant, who put his head down and admitted he was.  Appellant started to tell Pineda what had happened, but Pineda asked him not to talk anymore, arrested him, and then took him to the sheriff's office at the jail, to prepare the paperwork necessary for extradition.  This took place sometime before 3:00 p.m.  Pineda did not recall whether anyone offered appellant food or water during the time they were at the office on the bridge.

            Once appellant admitted he was the man who was wanted, he was placed in handcuffs.  When they arrived at the jail, Pineda put him in an unoccupied holding cell, uncuffed him, had him sit down, and explained to him what was going to happen so that he would not be scared.  Pineda also offered him food and water as soon as they arrived.

            At approximately 3:19 p.m., once the paperwork was filled out, appellant was taken before a judge there at the jail.  The judge read appellant his constitutional rights in Spanish, then asked if appellant understood.  Appellant said yes.  Pineda then returned appellant to the holding cell and again advised him in Spanish of his rights, including that, if he was not an American citizen, he had the right to consult with the consulate of his native country.^[5]  When Pineda asked if appellant wished to waive his rights, appellant said he would like to give a statement.  In order to do so, he had to sign each part of the form containing his rights, to show that it was read to him and he understood it.  Appellant initialed and signed as necessary.  This document was completed at 4:30 p.m.

            At that point, Pineda started the paperwork in reference to the case.  He told appellant that he knew someone had died and that appellant had shot him, and he asked appellant to tell him what had happened.  The conversation was casual; Pineda spoke to appellant â€