People v. Raspberry CA2/5

INTRODUCTION

A jury found defendant and appellant Jimmy Raspberry (defendant) guilty of armed robbery. On appeal, defendant contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to make a pretrial motion to suppress his statements to the police during a custodial interrogation. According to defendant, the record of his interrogation shows that he did not understand his right to appointed counsel and, therefore, he could not and did not expressly or impliedly waive his right against self-incrimination under Miranda.1 Defendant also requests that we independently review the transcripts of the in camera hearings on his two Pitchess2 motions to ensure that the trial court ordered that all discoverable materials were produced. We hold that because the record shows that defendant understood his right to appointed counsel and, thereafter, impliedly waived by his conduct his right against self- incrimination, his trial counsel’s failure to move to suppress his statements to the police did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. We also conclude, based on our independent review of the transcripts of the hearings on the two Pitchess…