People v. Ochoa

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NATHANIEL OCHOA, Defendant and Appellant.

F077942

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

February 9, 2021

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. No. 15CR00404A)

OPINION

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Mark V. Bacciarini, Judge.

Stephen M. Hinkle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Jeffrey D. Firestone, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Nathaniel Ochoa (defendant) participated in a home invasion robbery at a residence occupied by a woman and her baby. Believing there was a hidden box containing a large sum of money, the robbers ransacked the home and demanded the woman reveal its location. At one point, defendant picked up the baby and threatened to "take [it] away" if the woman did not disclose the information. After she continued to deny having such a box, defendant put down the baby and went on searching. The perpetrators left after finding approximately $2,000 inside of a diaper bag. The woman and her child were not physically harmed.

Defendant was arrested on suspicion of his involvement in the robbery. He was subjected to approximately 30 minutes of interrogation without being advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda). Defendant made incriminating statements prior to receiving the Miranda warnings, and he provided a full confession after they were given. His statements were used against him at trial.

A jury convicted defendant of kidnapping for ransom in violation of Penal Code section 209, subdivision (a), which carries a mandatory life sentence. (All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.) He was also found guilty of first degree burglary, first degree robbery, and aggravated false imprisonment. Based on the holding of People v. Martinez (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 579 (Martinez), disapproved on another ground in People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal.3d 577, 628, footnote 10, defendant argues he did not commit the crime of kidnapping for ransom. We agree and therefore reverse the conviction for insufficient evidence.

Defendant seeks full reversal of the judgment based on the violation of his Miranda rights and the alleged inducement of his confession by promises of benefits and/or leniency. These claims have merit. Consequently, the judgment must be reversed. Defendant will be subject to retrial on the charges of burglary, robbery, and false imprisonment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The victim lived with her husband and infant child in a trailer on a farm in Dos Palos. On December 11, 2014, the victim was home alone with her baby. At some point in the late morning or early afternoon, two people forced their way into the trailer. The victim later described the intruders as "a young man and a young girl."

The male intruder used plastic zip ties to bind the victim's hands in front of her body. He also bound her ankles together with duct tape. Once the victim was restrained, the intruders ransacked the home in search of money. Before leaving, the young man covered the victim's head with a blanket. Despite the effort to block her vision, she saw that a third person had entered the trailer.

After the perpetrators departed, the victim freed herself and contacted her husband. Two deputies from the Merced County Sheriff's Office were subsequently dispatched to the residence. The victim reported the theft of $2,000 in cash, which had been hidden inside of a diaper bag, and some gold jewelry. In her initial statements, she claimed to have held the baby in her arms throughout the incident. The male intruder had allegedly said, "Give us the money or we'll take the baby and stab you." (Some capitalization omitted.)

According to police reports, defendant (then age 19) and another man, S.L., were identified by fingerprints left on duct tape found at the crime scene. Through further investigation, a woman named Julia Rubio (then age 21), also known as Dimples, was identified as the female accomplice. An older man named "Tony" was rumored to have been the third intruder.¹ An unnamed fifth suspect, described as a man "in his late 40's to early 50's" (capitalization omitted), had allegedly assisted Tony in orchestrating the crime.

Defendant, Rubio, and S.L. were arrested and interrogated. S.L. explained the discovery of his fingerprints by alleging a family member had lent his roll of duct tape to defendant. Defendant and Rubio corroborated S.L.'s claim of innocence. Rubioadmitted to participating in the burglary and confirmed the involvement of defendant, Tony, and the unnamed middle-aged man.

Defendant was questioned by Rafael Chavez, who then worked as a detective for the Merced County Sheriff's Office. The recorded interview lasted approximately 50 minutes. During the first half hour, defendant was questioned without being advised of his Miranda rights. A detailed summary of the interview is provided in our Discussion, post.

During the pre-Miranda questioning, defendant was accused of being involved in a robbery the previous month. Detective Chavez asked about Tony and Rubio, and defendant admitted knowing them. The detective accused him of accompanying Tony on a trip to Dos Palos, but defendant denied it. However, defendant later insinuated that Tony had pressured him into going to Dos Palos to satisfy an outstanding debt. Tony was a reputed drug dealer, and defendant had owed him $100.

Following two short breaks, Detective Chavez provided a Miranda advisement and defendant waived his rights. Defendant then admitted to participating in the home invasion at Tony's behest. Tony had allegedly instructed him to search for a box containing $100,000. When he and Rubio failed to locate the box, Tony entered the trailer and began searching for it himself. Defendant said, "There was another guy involved too," but that person "didn't get out [of the vehicle]."

Defendant denied knowing the victim had been robbed of cash and jewelry. As far as he knew, Tony was given bad information about the box of money. When asked if Tony had taken anything from the trailer, defendant said, "I don't know. I didn't ask questions. Just got in the truck and we left."

Defendant took responsibility for tying up the victim but denied threating to stab her. He also implicitly denied threatening to abduct the baby. When asked if he had tried to "take the baby," defendant replied, "No. Well, I grabbed it—I grabbed the baby [and] told her, 'Where's the money at?'" He later clarified, "I told her, 'Give me the money.I'm gonna hold your baby.'" The victim insisted she was poor and had no money. Defendant "felt bad" for picking up the baby, so he handed the baby to the victim.

Defendant and Rubio were charged with kidnapping for ransom (§ 209, subd. (a); count 1), home invasion robbery (§§ 211, 213, subd. (a)(1)(A); count 2), residential burglary (§ 459; count 3), making criminal threats (§ 422; count 4), false imprisonment by violence (§§ 236, 237, subd. (a); count 5), and conspiracy to commit robbery (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 211; count 6). The conspiracy charge was later dismissed and the case against Rubio was severed. Defendant was tried separately in September 2017.

The victim and Detective Chavez were the People's only witnesses at trial. An edited video of defendant's custodial interview was shown to the jury during the People's case-in-chief. The defense case consisted of testimony by the deputies who had interviewed the victim on the day of the robbery.

Defense counsel argued that defendant committed the burglary/robbery under duress. Counsel attempted to refute the kidnapping and criminal threats charges by highlighting discrepancies in the victim's trial testimony as compared to her initial reporting of the incident and statements she had made on other occasions. At the close of evidence, the People stipulated the victim had "fairly recently" informed the prosecutor "that [defendant] did not threaten to stab her."

Defendant was found not guilty of making criminal threats. He was convicted as charged on the remaining counts. Following the denial of a motion for new trial, defendant was sentenced to four years in prison for first degree burglary and received an indeterminate life term for aggravated kidnapping. Stayed sentences were imposed for the convictions of robbery and false imprisonment. A timely notice of appeal was filed in August 2018.

DISCUSSION

I. Admissibility of Defendant's Custodial Statements

Defendant filed a pretrial motion to exclude evidence of his custodial statements. His motion focused on statements preceding the Miranda warnings. A secondary argument vaguely accused Detective Chavez of delaying the Miranda advisement for the purpose of "softening [him] up." The moving papers cited People v. Honeycutt (1977) 20 Cal.3d 150, which has been held "distinguishable on its facts." (People v. Scott (2011) 52 Cal.4th 452, 477; accord, People v. Krebs (2019) 8 Cal.5th 265, 306 ["Honeycutt has been limited to its facts"].) Defendant did not purport to rely on the more relevant authority of Missouri v. Seibert (2004) 542 U.S. 600 (Seibert). (See further discussion, post).

Defendant supplemented his "Miranda motion" with a motion in limine made on the ground of involuntariness. The second motion relied on cases holding that a confession motivated by promises of benefit or leniency is inadmissible. (E.g., People v. Carr (1972) 8 Cal.3d 287, 296.) Detective Chavez was alleged to...