Alvarez-Garcia v. State

1

JOSE ONAN ALVAREZ-GARCIA v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 641-2023

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

June 17, 2024

UNREPORTED ^[*]

Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No. C-02-CR-22-001347

Berger, Ripken, Raker, Irma S. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

Berger, J.

Following a bench trial in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Jose Onan Alvarez-Garcia ("Alvarez-Garcia"), appellant, was convicted of first-degree assault, second-degree assault, and wearing and carrying a dangerous weapon with the intent to injure. He was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment, with all but three years suspended, followed by a five-year term of supervised probation. Alvarez-Garcia now challenges the circuit court's denial of his motion to suppress the statements he made to law enforcement officers and appeals his conviction. On appeal, Alvarez-Garcia presents two questions for our review, which we consolidate and rephrase slightly as follows:^[1]

Whether the circuit court erred in denying Alvarez-Garcia's motion to suppress. For the reasons explained herein, we shall affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Alvarez-Garcia was arrested on September 9, 2022 following an incident in Anne

Arundel County, the facts of which are set forth in the agreed-upon statement of facts presented at trial:

On September 9th of 2022, at approximately 2128 hours officers with the Anne Arundel County Police responded to the area of Charlotte Drive and Jill Lane in Maryland City for a report of assault. Dispatch advised that there was a male slit in the throat and suffering minor injuries. Upon arrival, officers observed several individuals at the intersection, including the victim, Mr. Jerson Daniel Guzman-Garcia. Mr. Guzman-Garcia had a laceration across his throat area. EMS arrived and transported the victim to the fire station for treatment.

Witness Danny Surpas told the police that he saw the entire incident. He reported that the two suspects involved were Hispanic males. One was wearing a yellow shirt, blue shorts, and a hat. The second male was wearing a long sleeved blue plaid shirt and black pants.

Mr. Surpas stated that the incident stated [sic] when the male in blue got into a verbal argument with the victim. The male in blue pushed the victim and the victim pushed him back. The male in blue then left the area, only to return shortly with the male wearing the yellow shirt. The male in yellow approached the victim with a sharp silver object and lunged at the victim. The victim then grabbed his throat area and the two males [sic] suspects ran towards the community pool area.

Mr. Surpas observed the laceration to the victim's neck. And the victim would have testified at trial that he did not have any injuries to his neck prior to the male in yellow lunging at him. Police units canvassed for possible suspects. Two males matching the description of the suspects were located and a show up was conducted with Mr. Surpas. He positively identified the suspects as the males involved in the assaults.

Police also located a silver box cutter in the chair that the male in blue was sitting in. Both males were placed under arrest. The male in yellow would have been identified at trial as the Defendant, Jose Onan Alvarez-Garcia.

After his arrest, Alvarez-Garcia was transported to the Central Holding and Processing Center located in Annapolis, Maryland, where he was interviewed by Officers Kimberly Callison and Rachel Campos of the Anne Arundel County Police Department. Alvarez-Garcia is a native Spanish speaker with the equivalent of a first-grade education who is illiterate and does not speak any English. Officer Campos served as a translator during the interview. Officer Campos testified that, although she has no formal training in Spanish translation, she has spoken Spanish for 29 years. She learned English and Spanish simultaneously as a child and grew up speaking Spanish in her household with her parents, who are first-generation Americans. Officer Campos also testified that she frequently serves as a translator to assist fellow officers, averaging at least once per month.

At the beginning of the interview, the officers advised Alvarez-Garcia that they were there to "talk about what happened tonight." In response, Alvarez-Garcia told the officers that he would "tell [them] everything that happened." The officers then proceeded to advise Alvarez-Garcia of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Officer Campos began by asking Alvarez-Garcia to write his name on the Advisement of Rights form, which was printed in English. He wrote his first name but told her that he did not know how to write his last name. Officer Campos then proceeded to advise Alvarez-Garcia of his rights in Spanish. A translation of the statement of rights provided by Officer Campos's reads as follows:^[2]

I'm going to read this Ok? This paper what it says is "I" and there goes your name. I have been advised of my rights. That I'm going to advise you of your rights, I'm Officer Campos. That you have the right not to speak, okay? Everything that you say can be used on the court day. That no one is (unintelligible) and not one is threatening you so that you speak with us. You have the right to speak with an attorney. And if you want an attorney [tell me?] at any time you can say that you want an attorney. If you cannot I mean . . . you don't have money for an attorney you can (unintelligible) by the state.

Officer Campos asked Alvarez-Garcia if he "understood these rights," and Alvarez-Garcia responded in the affirmative. She asked him to indicate his understanding of his rights on the form, providing guidance along the way. One section on the Advisement of Rights form requires the individual completing the form to identify whether they were forced or coerced into giving a statement to law enforcement officers. Officer Campos explained this to Alvarez-Garcia, stating: "Now this one says that no one is threatening you, no one is forcing you and no one is convincing something [sic] for you to speak with us. Yes or No?" Alvarez-Garcia responded in the affirmative. Officer Callison requested that Officer Campos "[e]xplain to him this is his way of saying that we're not promising you anything, that he has to check over here 'no.'" Officer Campos did so, and Alvarez-Garcia switched his answer on the Advisement of Rights form to indicate "no." Officer Campos later testified that when Alvarez-Garcia originally answered in the affirmative, she thought "he probably didn't understand what I was trying to explain to him that [sic] the paper said."

The officers also asked Alvarez-Garcia if he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. He initially answered that he had not been drinking and that he "came from work." Officer Campos responded: "Yes, but you have been drinking?" This time, Alvarez-Garcia responded in the affirmative and confirmed on the Advisement of Rights form that he had been drinking. Officer Campos asked if he was too intoxicated to speak with the officers and Alvarez-Garcia assured them that he was "fine" and "good" to speak with them. After the form was completed, Alvarez-Garcia began to tell the officers about the incident leading to his arrest.

Alvarez-Garcia was charged with first-degree assault, second-degree assault, reckless endangerment, and wearing and carrying a dangerous weapon with the intent to injure. On December 27, 2022, Alvarez-Garcia filed a motion to suppress the statements he made to the officers during his custodial interrogation.^[3] He argued that the Miranda advisements he received were not sufficient because he was not advised that anything he said could be used against him in court. He also argued that his waiver of his rights was not knowing and voluntary.

The circuit court held a hearing on Alvarez-Garcia's motion to suppress on May 1, 2023. Officer Campos testified at the hearing, detailing the process through which she advised Alvarez-Garcia of his rights. Alvarez-Garcia also testified and stated that he did not remember being advised of his rights. The court concluded:

The Court in this case does find that the Defendant's statements were voluntarily given. The Court credits Officer Campos's testimony that she explained to the Defendant the Miranda rights. The Court finds that Officer Campos's statement, "Everything you say can be used on the court day" is substantially similar to, "Anything you say can be used against you," and does find that on that issue, the Defendant was properly advised of that right.

The Court further finds and does credit Officer Campos's testimony that it was her perception that the Defendant understood the advice that he was being given, that in certain circumstances, where he said "Si" indicating yes, it was not particularly with regard to that. When she asked whether he was being forced or coerced, she didn't perceive, nor did the Court in viewing the Defendant's body language and demeanor on the video, perceive that the Defendant was actually indicating that there was threats or coercion.

It certainly did not seem to the Court in viewing the body camera video that - or the recording of the interrogation that that was the case. The Court does consider the fact that Mr.

Alvarez-Garcia testified that he is illiterate and is not able to read either English or Spanish. But the Court doesn't find, in light of the fact that all of advice was given to him orally, that that was a significant factor in his making the determination.

The circuit court, therefore, denied Alvarez-Garcia's motion to suppress.

Alvarez-Garcia entered a plea of not guilty and waived his right to a jury trial, agreeing to proceed via bench trial based on an agreed-upon statement of facts. The State...