1 Cal. App. 5th 972
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- In the early morning of Jan. 22, 2014, apartment manager Elyahu Feiner found defendant Stephen Debouver leaning into a secured subterranean garage Jeep with a smashed window; Debouver fled on a red bicycle with a backpack when confronted.
- Police stopped Debouver ~30–45 minutes later eight blocks away; he matched the description, had a backpack containing stolen items and tools, and a screwdriver was found nearby.
- Feiner identified Debouver in a field show-up; blood in the ransacked vehicles matched Debouver’s DNA; one charger taken from a Ford Escape had blood on it.
- Debouver waived Miranda and gave oral and written statements admittingvehicle break-ins and that he cut his finger; at trial he testified he had blacked out from alcohol/medication and did not recall the events.
- A jury convicted Debouver of first-degree residential burglary with a "person present" finding; the trial court found multiple priors and sentenced him to 13 years.
- On appeal Debouver challenged (1) denial of advisory counsel after a Faretta waiver, (2) voluntariness/admissibility of his Miranda statements, (3) prosecutorial use of those statements for impeachment, and (4) the sufficiency of the "person present" enhancement and related instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of advisory (hybrid) counsel after Faretta waiver | Trial court properly exercised discretion; no constitutional right to advisory counsel | Denial undermined Faretta right and prejudiced defense | Denial was not an abuse of discretion; no prejudice shown; affirmed |
| Voluntariness / admissibility of Miranda waiver/statements | Waiver was knowing and voluntary; any error harmless given overwhelming independent evidence | Intoxication/blackout made waiver involuntary and statements coerced | Court found waiver voluntary; even if erroneous, admission harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Prosecutorial use of prior statements to impeach defendant’s trial testimony | Use was proper impeachment of prior inconsistent statements once defendant testified | Prosecutor committed misconduct by using statements after implying they would not be used | No misconduct; no promise induced testimony; impeachment use permitted and harmless |
| "Person present" enhancement & instruction (667.5(c)(21)) | Garage was functionally part of the residence; manager was present, so enhancement applies | Subterranean garage is not a "residence" for this enhancement; instruction defective | Garage was functionally interconnected with the dwelling; enhancement and instructions proper; any instructional omission waived or harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Crandell, 46 Cal.3d 833 (discussing discretion on advisory counsel and hybrid-representation limits) (trial court may consider defendant’s abilities and manipulative motives when denying advisory counsel)
- People v. Moore, 51 Cal.4th 1104 (self-representation does not entitle defendant to advisory counsel)
- People v. Bigelow, 37 Cal.3d 731 (factors in deciding whether to appoint advisory counsel)
- People v. Quartermain, 16 Cal.4th 600 (promise-related issues and use of statements)
- Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (prior voluntary statements admissible to impeach defendant’s testimony)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (harmless-error standard for erroneous admission of confession)
- People v. Samayoa, 15 Cal.4th 795 (application of harmless-error analysis where challenged confession admitted)
- People v. Rodriguez, 77 Cal.App.4th 1101 (when an attached structure is part of the dwelling for burglary law)