Calderon
People v. Calderon
Opinion
Opinion
Nicholson, J.
In talking with an investigator from the Yolo County Public Defender’s Office, defendant implicated himself in a shooting and then asked for an attorney. The investigator contacted the police, apprising them of defendant’s involvement and his request for an attorney, and defendant accompanied the investigator to the police department. Without obtaining an attorney for defendant, police advised defendant of his Miran da rights. Defendant indicated he understood, signed a waiver, and submitted to a videotaped interview regarding the shooting incident. The trial court suppressed defendant’s statements to the police, finding they could be used only for impeachment purposes under Arizona v. Roberson (1988) 486 U.S. 675 [ 108 S.Ct. 2093 , 100 L.Ed.2d 704 ]. The court found defendant had requested counsel, counsel had not been provided, and further interrogation was initiated by police, not defendant. The People appeal. We reverse.
Facts
In a case involving charges of attempted murder in a shooting incident, the Yolo County Public Defender’s Office represented the alleged perpetrator, Jose Villa. Robert Samaniego, an investigator for the public defender’s office, identified…