P. v. Bell
Filed 5/5/06 P. v. Bell CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEGENE RAPHEL BELL, Defendant and Appellant. | E037086 (Super.Ct.No. RIF113411) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Rex H. Minter, Judge. (Retired judge of the L.A. Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed as modified.
Anita P. Jog and Appellate Defenders, Inc., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Kristen K. Chenelia, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
After the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress his confession on the ground that it had been induced by promises of leniency, and therefore was not voluntary, a jury found him guilty of 11 counts of residential burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459, one count of grand theft of a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision (d)(2), one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 12021, subdivision (a)(1), and one count of unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a). In a bifurcated proceeding, after defendant waived his right to a jury, the trial court found true special allegations that defendant had suffered three prior prison convictions (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), one prior serious felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)), and one prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (c), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). The trial court sentenced defendant to serve a total of 45 years four months in state prison.
In this appeal defendant raises two claims of error. First, he contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his confession. Next, he contends that the trial court violated Penal Code section 654 by imposing sentences on both a burglary conviction and also on a conviction for the theft of a car taken during the burglary.
We agree with defendant's claim of sentencing error. Therefore, we will modify the judgment by staying execution of the offending sentence. As modified, we will affirm the judgment.
DISCUSSION
The details of defendant's criminal conduct are not relevant to the limited issues he raises in this appeal. Those details are set out in his opening brief and we will not recount them here. Instead, we will recount only those facts that are pertinent to the issues we must resolve in this appeal.
1.
VOLUNTARINESS OF CONFESSION
Defendant contends that his confessions to the police on November 5 and November 11, 2003, were involuntary and therefore were inadmissible. Because his confessions were the only evidence that linked him to 10 of the burglaries of which the jury found him guilty, defendant argues that those convictions must be reversed. We disagree, for reasons we now explain.
The pertinent facts are undisputed and disclose that on November 5, 2003, Corona Police Detective Stayner arrested defendant after serving a search warrant at defendant's home. While at the police station following his arrest, defendant asked to talk with Detective Stayner. Detective Stayner and Detective Leary met with defendant in an interview room.[1] After defendant was advised of his Miranda[2] rights, he asked to talk alone with Detective Stayner. After Detective Leary left the room, defendant asked if Detective Stayner could work with defendant because defendant knew he was facing a lot of time in jail.[3] Defendant told the detective that he could provide information about â€