People v. Silva CA1/1, A159074

Background:

Silva worked as office manager for a small construction-cleaning LLC, handling QuickBooks, accounts payable/receivable, and printing checks but was not authorized to sign checks or disburse funds.
Between 2014 and 2017 Silva printed checks payable to herself, forged the managing partner’s signature, and deposited about $230,000 of nearly $250,000 taken into her personal account.
Police interviewed Silva at the station after contacting her at home; officers told her she was not under arrest and free to leave; she said her attorney told her not to speak, but then described the misconduct before arrest and gave a fuller confession after Miranda warnings and arrest.
A jury convicted Silva of embezzlement (Pen. Code §504), identity theft, and multiple forgery counts; sentence totaled 5 years 4 months including enhancements for aggravated white-collar crime and amount-based enhancements.
On appeal Silva argued her pre-arrest statements were obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment and that evidence was insufficient to prove embezzlement because the company did not entrust its money to her.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of pre-arrest statements (Fifth Amendment)	Interview was noncustodial; Miranda not required; Silva did not unequivocally invoke right to remain silent.	Officers misled/discouraged her from following counsel's advice; governmental coercion excused express invocation.	Statements before arrest admissible: noncustodial, no coercion that negated free choice; defendant had no right to counsel in noncustodial setting.
Sufficiency of evidence for embezzlement (entrustment element)	Silva had access & managed accounts; employer trusted her with check processes so money was entrusted.	Silva was only a scrivener with access to records/QuickBooks and lacked authority to disburse funds; no legal entrustment of money.	Reversed embezzlement conviction: jury lacked substantial evidence that company entrusted its money to Silva.
Restitution award & §186.11 fine based on uncharged conduct	Trial court awarded direct victim restitution for proven losses at trial (including pre-charge years) and doubled it as a §186.11 fine.	Silva argued restitution cannot be imposed for uncharged conduct; fine must be recalculated.	Remand required: restitution must exclude losses from uncharged conduct and §186.11 fine recalculated accordingly.
Multiple §1202.4 restitution fines & related §1202.45 fine	Trial court imposed and stayed multiple $300 restitution fines (one per count) and corresponding parole/revocation fines.	Silva argued only one restitution fine per case is permitted.	Error: only one §1202.4 restitution fine may be imposed; corresponding §1202.45 fine must be corrected on remand.

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)
Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 178 (U.S. 2013) (express invocation rule and governmental-coercion exception)
Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (Fifth Amendment requires express claim of privilege absent governmental coercion)
McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1991) (Miranda right to counsel tied to custodial interrogation; Sixth Amendment distinct)
People v. Montarial, 120 Cal. 691 (Cal. 1898) (access to property does not necessarily establish entrustment for embezzlement)
People v. Knott, 15 Cal.2d 628 (Cal. 1940) (control/authority over funds can satisfy entrustment where authority to disburse exists)
People v. Selivanov, 5 Cal.App.5th 726 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (embezzlement contemplates entrustment of property to agent by principal)