 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Zanini1/10/2003
THE COURT
Appellant David N. Zanini appeals his conviction of one count of attempted murder and one count of assault with a deadly weapon, claiming the trial court erred in admitting a knife and his statements to police concerning the location of the knife made in response to police questioning after he invoked his Miranda right to counsel. We hold that admission of the statements in the prosecution's case-in-chief violated Edwards v. Arizona (1981) 451 U.S. 477, and that the public safety exception does not render the statements admissible because they were obtained by an implied representation that they would not be used against appellant. We further hold that the knife was not required to be suppressed because appellant's statements were not coerced. The judgment of conviction is reversed.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On December 28, 2000, an information was filed in Fresno Superior Court charging appellant with the attempted murder of Michael McMillan in violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 187 (count 1), and assault with a deadly weapon upon Michael McMillan in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1) (count 2). As to both counts, it was alleged that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a). Count 1 contained allegations that appellant committed the offense willfully, deliberately and with premeditation, and that appellant used a knife as a deadly weapon within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (b)(1).
The information also alleged appellant suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of section 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and had served two prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).
On December 7, 2000, appellant filed a motion to suppress statements, the knife and forensic evidence that purportedly were obtained in violation of the rules set forth in Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. 436. The opposition to the motion argued, among other things, that a motion to suppress was not a procedurally appropriate way to raise a violation of Miranda. Appellant's motion to suppress was withdrawn at a December 18, 2000, hearing.
On March 1, 2001, the trial court heard a motion in limine regarding the admissibility of appellant's statements and the knife. The trial court denied appellant's request to suppress his statements and the knife. Jury selection began on March 2, 2001.
On Monday, March 5, 2001, testimony was presented to the jury. The prosecution called the victim and two police officers as witnesses. Appellant testified on his own behalf and called one other witness. On March 6, 2001, the jury heard closing arguments, received final instructions from the trial court and, after deliberations, found appellant guilty on both counts. The priors were tried to the court and appellant admitted a prior serious felony conviction and the prior prison terms for a 1990 attempted second degree robbery conviction and a 1994 felony drunk driving conviction.
On July 18, 2001, the court sentenced appellant. As to count 1, appellant was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole, doubled due to the prior conviction under the three strikes law. As to the section 12022.7 enhancement, appellant received an additional three years, which were stayed. As to the section 12022, subdivision (b)(1) enhancement, appellant received an additional year, which also was stayed. With respect to count 2, appellant was sentenced to the upper term of eight years, with an additional three years for the section 12022.7 enhancement, all
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|