P. v. Jimenez CA4/2
Defendant and appellant Abel Jimenez appeals his conviction on one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale. He contends that although the trial court properly granted his motion to exclude inculpatory statements he made before being read his Miranda rights, the court erred in failing to exclude similar statements he made after he was given and then waived his rights under Miranda. He contends that the post-Miranda statements were not voluntary because the arresting officer falsely told him that possession of methamphetamine for sale was a misdemeanor and, in an effort to “soften” him up, told him that if he cooperated, they could “work something out.”
We reject defendant’s contention that the officer’s conduct rendered his admission involuntary. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Jimenez CA4/2