People v. Bichara, B270653

Background

On Jan. 28–30, 2015, defendant Armando Bichara was arrested and later tried for first‑degree murder (count 1) and kidnapping (count 3) after Maria Ontiveros was stabbed in the back seat of a car driven by Guadalupe Montellano. Surveillance video and witness testimony showed events at a bus stop and an alley where Ontiveros’s body was dumped.
After arrest, detectives Mirandized Bichara. At a second recorded interview he twice said he did not want to talk and then explicitly stated, “I refuse to talk to you guys. There. That’s my side of the story.” Despite this, detectives continued questioning and Bichara made incriminating statements including conceding he “did that” to protect Montellano.
The prosecution played the redacted audio/transcript of the interviews during its case‑in‑chief. Defense counsel initially objected generally (Miranda, hearsay, prejudice) but ultimately withdrew objections and did not specifically argue at trial that Bichara had unambiguously invoked his Miranda right to remain silent prior to the inculpatory statements.
The jury convicted Bichara of first‑degree murder and kidnapping. He was sentenced to an aggregate term including indeterminate 100 years‑to‑life plus determinate terms under the Three Strikes law. The trial court’s abstract also erroneously included a $457 attorney‑fee entry.
On appeal the court held the Miranda‑triggered objection was forfeited for lack of a timely, specific objection, but found trial counsel’s failure to preserve the Miranda‑invocation claim constituted ineffective assistance as to the murder conviction because the confession was inadmissible and prejudicial. The murder conviction was reversed; the kidnapping conviction was affirmed; the matter was remanded for possible retrial on murder and correction of the abstract.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Bichara)	Held
Admissibility of post‑arrest statements under Miranda	Statements were admissible; defendant had been Mirandized and did not clearly invoke the right to remain silent; any objection was forfeited	He invoked his Miranda right (“I refuse to talk to you guys”) before making inculpatory statements; those later statements were inadmissible	Forfeiture: defendant failed to make a timely, specific Miranda‑invocation objection at trial, so issue was forfeited.
Forfeiture vs. ineffective assistance of counsel	Forfeiture is dispositive; no need to reach ineffective‑assistance	If claim is forfeited, counsel was ineffective for failing to object and preserve the Miranda‑invocation issue	Counsel’s failure to object was ineffective under Strickland for the murder count because the post‑invocation confession was inadmissible and no tactical reason justified counsel’s silence.
Prejudice from admission of confession as to murder conviction	Any Miranda error was harmless given other evidence (Montellano’s testimony, forensic evidence)	The post‑invocation confession was heavily relied on in rebuttal and corroborated the victim; its admission prejudiced the murder verdict	Prejudice shown as to murder: reasonable probability of a different result if confession excluded; murder conviction reversed and retrial permitted.
Prejudice from admission of confession as to kidnapping conviction	Admission did not prejudice kidnapping because kidnapping proof rested on video and witnesses; confession didn’t mention kidnapping	Confession and intertwined theory of crimes likely influenced jury on kidnapping; should require reversal too	No prejudice as to kidnapping: independent and corroborated evidence (surveillance video, two eyewitnesses, victim testimony, pre‑invocation statements placing defendant at scene) supports affirmation of kidnapping conviction.

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warnings and right to remain silent/attorney before custodial interrogation)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (U.S. 2010) (standards for invoking Miranda rights and ambiguous vs. unambiguous invocation)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (U.S. 1986) (applying Strickland prejudice standard to failure to file suppression motion)
People v. Rundle, 43 Cal.4th 76 (Cal. 2008) (forfeiture requires timely, specific objection to preserve Miranda invocation claim)
People v. Jackson, 1 Cal.5th 269 (Cal. 2016) (inadmissibility of statements obtained after an invoked right to remain silent)
People v. Cahill, 5 Cal.4th 478 (Cal. 1993) (improper admission of confession is highly prejudicial)
People v. Duff, 58 Cal.4th 527 (Cal. 2014) (recorded interview review; independent review of suppression issues)