State v. Lunacolorado

• Decision Date: 17 November 2010
• Docket Number: 080647967; A139805.
• Citation: 243 P.3d 125,238 Or.App. 691
• Parties: STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Rosendo LUNACOLORADO, aka Rosendo Luna-Colorado, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

243 P.3d 125 238 Or.App. 691 STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Rosendo LUNACOLORADO, aka Rosendo Luna-Colorado, Defendant-Appellant. 080647967; A139805. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Submitted March 25, 2010. Decided Nov. 17, 2010.

Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Daniel C. Bennett, Deputy Public Defender, Appellate Division, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Jerome Lidz, Solicitor General, and Matthew Lysne, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before SCHUMAN, Presiding Judge, and WOLLHEIM, Judge, and ROSENBLUM, Judge.

SCHUMAN, P.J.

Defendant appeals a judgment for criminal contempt based on his violation of a restraining order. ORS 33.065. He assigns error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress incriminating statements he made during a police interrogation. Defendant argues that, because of his lack of proficiency in English, he did not understand the Miranda warnings that were administered to him; as a result, he contends, his statements were presumptively involuntary and had to be suppressed under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, both of which provide guarantees against compelled self-incrimination. We review the trial court's decision for errors of law, but we are bound by the findings of fact on which that decision is based if they are supported by any evidence. State v. Ehly, 317 Or. 66, 75, 854 P.2d 421 (1993). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

The following facts are undisputed. Defendant was prohibited by a restraining order from contacting his ex-partner Cruz.¹ While the order was in effect, however, Cruz received a letter, written in Spanish, from defendant's mother. Cruz suspected that defendant wrote the letter and had his mother deliver it to Cruz. Cruz gave the letter to the Gresham police. Defendant was arrested and transported to the police station where Detective Silva and Officer Clay questioned him about the letter's authorship. Before doing so, Silva gave defendant Miranda warnings in English and asked defendant if he understood them. Defendant responded that he did not. The detective then repeated the warnings "point by point and explained them to [defendant], and then [asked defendant] if he understood. * * * And he said he did." At some point in the interaction, defendant requested an interpreter, but the detective told him none was available. Silva, however, believed that he and defendant were "communicat[ing] effectively" and that the conversation could continue in English. He asked if defendant was willing to speak with him and Officer Clay. Defendant replied that"he wanted to know what it was about first." Silva told him about the letter Cruz had given to the police, and defendant agreed to talk about it. Although he acknowledged that Cruz had a restraining order against him and that he had a copy of the order, he denied having written the letter. He repeated the denial several times during the subsequent interrogation. At one point, according to Silva, defendant

"said something about, well, you know, why would he want to talk to us. And I said-and I just asked him, I said, who wrote the letter. And again, Officer Clay followed up by telling [defendant] we were trying to figure out who wrote it if it wasn't him, and then his response was 'because it's real.' And I didn't really understand what [defendant] meant, so I asked him again who wrote it, and [defendant] said me. And when I asked why, he says 'because I love my kids.' "

The foregoing facts were adduced at the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress. Cruz also testified at the hearing, through an interpreter. She related that she and defendant had lived together for six years and that, whenever an English-speaking person telephoned, she handed the receiver to defendant, who would then speak to the caller in English.

The court denied defendant's motion to suppress. In its ruling, the court stated,

"I'm troubled by the-by the request for the interpreter which wasn't fulfilled, but on the evidence that's before me, it appears to me that the officer, the detective, believed that he was having a conversation that was being interpreted-being understood on both sides, and so I will deny the motion to suppress at this time."

At the subsequent trial, defendant was convicted of criminal contempt for violating the restraining order.

On appeal, defendant advances a two-step argument. First, he contends that, as demonstrated by the ruling quoted above, the trial court misapprehended the law; the court ruled against defendant based on its finding that the officer believed that defendant understood the Miranda warnings, when, in fact, the correct inquiry is whether defendant understood them-an inquiry regarding which the officer's belief is not dispositive. Second, he contends that thecorrect answer to the correct inquiry is that defendant did not understand the warnings. The state responds that the trial court indirectly addressed the issue of defendant's understanding, that the court implicitly found that defendant understood the warnings, and that we must defer to that implicit finding. We agree with the state.

The law in this area is well-settled. In order to ensure that a suspect who is subjected to custodial interrogation is not compelled to provide information that can subsequently be used against him in a criminal prosecution, and to ensure that the suspect is afforded the right to counsel, the Oregon and United States constitutions require that police administer the familiar warnings set out in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). U.S. Const., Amend. V; Or. Const., Art. I, § 12; State v. Smith, 310 Or. 1, 7, 791 P.2d 836 (1990). Evidence resulting from interrogation that occurred without Miranda warnings is generally inadmissible unless the state can prove that the suspect knowingly waived his or her right to remain silent and right to an attorney. State v. James, 339 Or. 476, 491, 123 P.3d 251 (2005). A suspect who does not understand that he or she has those rights-that is, who does not understand the Miranda warnings-has not validly waived them. State v. Ruiz, 251 Or. 193, 444 P.2d 32 (1968).

The parties agree that defendant was in custody when questioned by the officers, that the questioning was "interrogation," and that the Miranda warnings that Silva recited were correct and sufficient. The question before the trial court and on appeal is whether, given defendant's command of English, he understood the warnings. Defendant asserts that the trial court did not know that it had to find that defendant understood his rights; rather, according to defendant, the court believed that it could deny the motion upon a finding that the officer believed defendant understood them. Defendant's argument hinges on the trial court's ruling, specifically its finding that "the detective believed that he was having a conversation that was being interpreted-being understood on both sides." The state counters that, under Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or. 485, 443 P.2d 621 (1968), this court must infer that the trial court made a finding as todefendant's understanding because there was conflicting evidence on that fact and the trial court ultimately denied the motion.

The state's argument loads Ball with more freight than it can carry. In that case, the Supreme Court explained that, if a trial court does not make express findings of historical fact on a question, and the record contains conflicting evidence with respect to that fact, the reviewing court may infer that the trial court resolved the disputed issue in a manner that is consistent with its legal conclusion.

"What actually transpired is a question of fact for the trial court or jury. If the evidence sustains such historical factual findings they will not be disturbed by this court. If findings are not made on all such facts, and there is evidence from which such facts could be decided more than one way, we will presume that the facts were decided in a manner consistent with the ultimate conclusion."

Id. at 487, 443 P.2d 621. In one situation, then, Ball allows us to infer a finding of factthat the trial court does not expressly make: when there is conflicting evidence about a fact that is a necessary predicate to the court's conclusion.

However, if defendant is correct that the court misapprehended the law, then Ball cannot supply the implicit finding. That is so, because the implicit finding-that defendant understood the Miranda warnings-is not a necessary predicate to the conclusion that the court reached if, as defendant argues, the court reached its conclusion on the ground that the officer believed that defendant understood the warnings. Put another way: If defendant is correct that the court based its legal conclusion on the officer's belief, the court could have reached that conclusion without necessarily deciding anything about whether defendant in fact understood the warnings-because, under the court's reasoning (as described by defendant), defendant's actual understanding was not an issue. The state, then, applies Ball prematurely. The reasoning in that case allows us to infer a finding of fact, but only where we can deduce that the trial court's chain of reasoning must necessarily have included that fact as one of its links. Here, that would require a demonstration that the court correctly understood that it needed to determinewhether defendant actually understood the warnings. The state's argument does not undertake that preliminary step.

We do. The record shows that the court did not misapprehend the law. The question of defendant's understanding was properly framed for the court and the court heard conflicting evidence on the issue of defendant's understanding. From the outset, defendant's attorney asserted that the premise of the hearing was to...