Racklin

People v. Racklin

Good Law
124 Cal. Rptr. 3d 735·195 Cal. App. 4th 872·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 613
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 19, 2011Nos. A128857, A128858California4,226 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Margulies, J.

*874 Opinion

Defendant Leroy Racklin appeals from a judgment imposing a four-year term in state prison following the revocation of his probation. He contends the trial court erred in considering evidence in the revocation hearing of an admission elicited from him by police officers in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 ] (Miranda). We find the Miranda exclusionary rule does not apply in probation revocation proceedings, and defendant failed in any event to meet his burden of proving prejudice. We therefore affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Defendant’s Drug Convictions

In exchange for the dismissal of various enhancement allegations and a three-year term of probation, defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of transportation and/or sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) in superior court case No. 202772. He was released on probation on September 10, 2007.

Following new arrests in September and October 2007, and the filing of new criminal charges on October 18, 2007, in superior court case No. 203741, the district attorney moved to revoke defendant’s probation. On November 26, 2007, defendant admitted a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.