People v. Tschanz
| Decision Date | 29 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | C090540 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MELISSA DAWN TSCHANZ, Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
A jury found defendant Melissa Tschanz guilty of felony identity theft and misdemeanor giving false information to a police officer. The trial court further found true a prior strike allegation. On appeal, defendant argues: (1) the police officers violated defendant's Fourth Amendment rights when they arrested her without probable cause and the trial court thus abused its discretion in denying her motion to suppress; (2) the trial court erred in admitting defendant's statements to a police officer because the statements were made during a custodial interrogation in the absence of defendant receiving Miranda1 warnings; (3) the evidence at trial was insufficient to support defendant's misdemeanor conviction because the prosecution failed to prove she was detained when she gave a false name to a police officer; (4) she received ineffective assistance of counsel if defense counsel's concession of defendant's guilt as to the misdemeanor charge constituted the only substantial evidence supporting the conviction; and (5) the trial court erred in finding true the prior strike allegation because defendant's Washington robbery conviction does not constitute a strike in California.
The People concede the trial court erred in finding true the prior strike allegation but request we remand the matter for further proceedings in accordance with Gallardo. (People v. Gallardo (2017) 4 Cal.5th 120, 139.) They maintain the remainder of defendant's arguments are without merit.
We accept the People's concession and reverse the true finding regarding the prior strike allegation; we remand the matter for further proceedings. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.
Defendant's arguments require the recitation of testimony given and/or evidence received at four phases in this criminal matter -- the motion to suppress hearing, the preliminary examination hearing, trial, and a hearing on defendant's motion to strike the prior strike allegation. To avoid confusion and for the reader's ease, we discuss the testimony and/or evidence pertinent to each argument in the discussion of that issue below.
Detective Michael Roberts testified he and Detective Alonso Aguilar drove to a motel on July 18, 2018, around noon to look for C. Kerby, a female with an outstanding felony arrest warrant and driving a stolen rental car.2 The detectives went there because the motel, "in [Detective Roberts's] experience, is a common place for known wanted subjects to stay." The detectives noticed a rental car parked in the motel parking lot.
The motel manager directed the detectives to room 213,3 which was located on the second floor. The manager provided Detective Roberts with a copy of the California driver's license a woman used to rent the room. The name on the driver's license was J. Farnham. Farnham's picture resembled the physical description of Kerby in that the women had the same relative build, hair color, and hair style. Detective Roberts did not pay attention to the height and weight listed on the driver's license; he was focused on whether the license "could be passed off as the person [he] was looking for." Detective Roberts explained: "Based on my training and experience I know that specifically at this particular hotel that subjects who are wanted or are engaged in nefarious activity oftenuse stolen or false [identifications] to rent motel rooms, so I was under the belief that the subject may have used a false [identification] to rent the room."
The detectives went to room 213. Detective Aguilar knocked on the door and a female asked "who was there." Detective Aguilar said "it was the Sheriff's office" and they needed to confirm the woman's identity to make sure she was not the person they were seeking. Detective Roberts heard "a lot of rustling around and a lot of movement" in the room, raising concerns the woman inside was attempting to destroy or conceal evidence or attempting to flee out of the back window. Detective Roberts accordingly went into the adjoining room and stuck his head out of the window to make sure the woman was not attempting to flee. Detective Aguilar continued talking to the woman but Detective Roberts could not hear what was being said. Neither detective drew a weapon. At some point, two other officers joined the detectives at the motel. One of those officers was Detective Roberts's supervisor, Sergeant Robert St. Pierre.
The woman inside the room opened the door after approximately 10 minutes. Detectives Roberts and Aguilar entered the room. Sergeant St. Pierre also entered the room at some point, whereas the fourth officer remained in the hallway or in the doorway of the room. The woman was not handcuffed or placed under arrest. Detective Roberts identified defendant as the woman in the motel room.
Detective Roberts noticed defendant was not Kerby; he also noticed she was not Farnham. Detective Roberts suspected Farnham's driver's license had been stolen and defendant was wanted by the police. Detective Roberts thus asked defendant to identify herself. Defendant initially refused to provide her name. Sergeant St. Pierre also spoke with defendant in the bathroom area of the room, attempting to elicit information from her. Defendant was uncooperative, evaded the questions, and appeared upset at the officers' presence.
After approximately five minutes of questioning, defendant told Detective Roberts her name was Tanya Charles and provided him with a date of birth. Defendant alsoadmitted to Detective Roberts that she had used a false identification to rent the motel room. Detective Roberts used the name and date of birth provided by defendant to check for outstanding warrants; he concluded defendant was not wanted and the officers left. The time lapse between the police entering and leaving the motel room was approximately 10 to 15 minutes.
Defendant was not arrested on July 18, 2018, and was never told she was under arrest or being detained.
Detective Aguilar testified he and Detective Roberts went to the motel to look for Kerby, who had an outstanding felony arrest warrant. The detectives had information indicating Kerby was at the motel and possibly driving a stolen car. The detectives showed a motel employee a photo and asked to whom the rental car in the parking lot belonged. The motel employee showed the detectives a copy of a driver's license and directed them to a specific room. The physical description on the driver's license "was fairly similar to [Kerby's] physical descriptions." Detective Aguilar explained, "it's pretty well known that individuals who are wanted sometimes use [identifications] that they come across by various ways to obtain rooms or -- or break other laws."
The detectives went to a room on the second floor to investigate whether Kerby was there. Detective Aguilar knocked on the door and waited for a response. A woman "asked what [they] wanted" and Detective Aguilar identified himself "as the Sheriff's office." Detective Aguilar told the woman they were looking for Kerby. He tried for approximately five to 10 minutes to get the woman to open the door. Detective Aguilar called the woman inside the room by Kerby's first name because he believed he was speaking with Kerby.
Detective Aguilar told the woman whom he called by Kerby's first name: He further used aruse, stating "something to the effect of we have a canine coming" and, if the dog went into the room, she could get hurt. Detective Aguilar further repeatedly told the woman, "open the door, we're not going anywhere, we know you're inside." He never, however, told the woman she (not Kerby) was under arrest. Detective Aguilar had his gun unholstered while he was talking through the door.
The woman eventually opened the door. Detective Aguilar identified defendant as the woman in the motel room that day. Upon seeing defendant inside the room, Detective Aguilar immediately realized she was not Kerby. Detective Aguilar believed that, while he was talking to defendant through the door, there were four police officers including himself on the scene.
Before defendant opened the door, Detective Aguilar believed the woman inside the room was Kerby based on the "totality of the circumstances": the detectives had information indicating Kerby was at the motel with a stolen car, they saw a rental car in the motel parking lot, the motel employee showed them the driver's license of the person associated with the rental car and the physical description on the license was similar to Kerby's physical description, and the female in the room was acting suspicious by making rapid movements and having a nervous tone in her voice. Detective Aguilar acknowledged, however, that the description from the driver's license "was a general description that would fit a lot of different people."
Defendant testified officers banged on the motel room door and told her they had a warrant and wanted her to verify her identity. She told them she "was not the person [who] they were looking for and that [she] did not want to answer the door." Defendant further told the officers she wanted to call her attorney. The officers did not provide a name or description of the person identified in the warrant. After approximately 10 minutes, one of the officers told defendant ...
To continue reading
Request your trial