State v. Garnica, 011019 AZAPP1, 1 CA-CR 17-0483
|Docket Nº:||1 CA-CR 17-0483|
|Opinion Judge:||JOHNSEN, Judge:|
|Party Name:||STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ANDRES SERRATO GARNICA, Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Michael T. O'Toole Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Office of the Legal Advocate, Phoenix By Dawnese C. Hustad Counsel for Appellant|
|Judge Panel:||Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.|
|Case Date:||January 10, 2019|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Arizona|
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2015-155207-001 The Honorable Erin O'Brien Otis, Judge
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Michael T. O'Toole Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Office of the Legal Advocate, Phoenix By Dawnese C. Hustad Counsel for Appellant
Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.
¶1 Andres Serrato Garnica appeals his conviction and sentence for second-degree murder. He argues the court made three erroneous evidentiary rulings and erred in imposing an aggravated sentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Garnica and his wife, M.P., and their two young children were preparing to move from Phoenix to California, where Garnica's father and step-mother lived. Garnica enlisted his neighbor, J.L., to help load a truck that Garnica had rented for the move. Shortly after the men began packing, M.P. was walking with the couple's children toward the kitchen, when she heard two gunshots. M.P. took the children to the bedroom. When she returned to the kitchen, she found Garnica holding a gun and standing over J.L., who was on the floor bleeding from gunshot wounds to his head and torso. When the victim managed to come to his feet, Garnica grabbed him and "hog-tied" him with a rope. J.L. soon died. After Garnica threatened to kill her too, M.P. helped him quickly clean up after the shooting. The two placed the body in a children's playpen and positioned the playpen in the back of the rental truck.
¶3 Early the next morning, the family proceeded to California, with Garnica driving the truck and M.P. following in a car with their children. They arrived at Garnica's father's house later that day. At about 9:00 p.m., local law enforcement responded to a call at the home. Unaware of the murder, police arrested Garnica, seized his Glock 45-caliber handgun and charged him with domestic violence and weapons violations.
¶4 The following morning, M.P. informed Garnica's father of the body in the truck, and he called police. Law enforcement discovered the body and transported Garnica to the local sheriffs department to be interviewed. During the interview, Garnica confessed to shooting and killing J.L.
¶5 Meanwhile, J.L.'s wife, G.L., had become concerned when her husband did not return home from helping Garnica load the truck. She noticed the truck that she had seen at the Garnica apartment was gone and the apartment was dark. Worried, she called police, who informed her she had to wait a week to report her husband missing.
¶6 After Garnica was charged and extradited to Arizona, a jury found him guilty of second-degree murder. The jury also found six aggravating factors. The superior court weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors and imposed the maximum sentence of 25 years in prison. Garnica timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2019), 13-4031 (2019), and -4033(A)(1) (2019).2
A. Motion to Suppress.
¶7 Before trial, Garnica moved to suppress the incriminating statements he made during his interview with California law enforcement. Garnica argued the detective who interviewed him ignored Garnica's request for counsel, thereby rendering the statements involuntary and in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The superior court addressed Garnica's motion at a hearing at which it heard testimony of the deputy who arrested Garnica, the detective who interviewed him, and Garnica himself. The court also reviewed a video recording of the interview. Finding Garnica had not invoked his right to counsel at any time, the court denied the motion to suppress.
¶8 The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments afford a suspect the right against self-incrimination, which includes the right under the Sixth Amendment to counsel during a custodial interrogation. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 432-35 (2000) (citing Miranda, 384 U.S. at 439-45). If a suspect requests counsel, "the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present."
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP