People v. Wejbe CA4/3, G059155

Background

Deputy Mier encountered Matthew Wejbe in a hotel parking lot; Wejbe had a Visa debit card belonging to "Dayna J." in his wallet.
Shell station surveillance showed Dayna J. at 1:14 a.m., dropping a card; Wejbe picked it up at 1:37 a.m. and made two transactions at ~1:40–1:46 a.m., with a third attempt failing.
At the parking-lot detention about seven hours later, Wejbe told the deputy he found the card at the Shell and denied using it; he was later arrested after an in-field under‑the‑influence investigation.
Charged with two counts of unauthorized use of another’s personal identifying information (§ 530.5(a)) and one count of fraudulently acquiring/retaining that information (§ 530.5(c)); he admitted a bifurcated crime‑bail‑crime enhancement (§ 12022.1(b)) and that the offenses occurred while released on bail.
Trial court admitted Wejbe’s in-field statements (declining suppression), convicted him on all counts, imposed an aggregate county‑jail term (including a 2‑year consecutive crime‑bail‑crime enhancement), and imposed a concurrent term on the § 530.5(c) count.
On appeal the court (1) affirmed the Miranda ruling, (2) reversed and vacated the crime‑bail‑crime enhancement as unauthorized because the primary case was a misdemeanor, (3) rejected a § 654 stay as to count 3, and (4) found a § 17(b) reduction claim forfeited.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statements about the debit card made in the parking‑lot detention should have been suppressed under Miranda	People: Statements were made during a noncustodial, investigatory detention and were admissible	Wejbe: He was detained and not free to leave, so questioning was custodial and Miranda warnings were required	Court: Not custodial for Miranda; objective circumstances showed no restraint of freedom equivalent to formal arrest, so statements admissible
Whether counsel was ineffective for allowing Wejbe to admit the § 12022.1 (crime‑bail‑crime) enhancement	People: Enhancement proved and admissible based on court’s finding that Wejbe was on bail for case 19NF0256 when new offenses occurred	Wejbe: Primary case was a misdemeanor (not a felony) so § 12022.1 enhancement did not apply; admission was therefore defective	Court: Enhancement unauthorized as a matter of law because the primary case was a misdemeanor; reversal of the true finding and vacatur of the two‑year enhancement (no need to resolve ineffectiveness claim)
Whether § 654 barred separate punishment for the § 530.5(c) count (retaining/acquiring) given convictions for two § 530.5(a) uses	People: Counts involved distinct acts/objectives—use at the gas station vs. retention for future fraud—so § 654 does not bar punishment on count 3	Wejbe: All offenses arose from a single course of conduct and should be punished only once under § 654	Court: Substantial evidence supports distinct intent/objective (immediate use vs. retention with intent to defraud); § 654 relief denied for count 3
Whether the trial court abused discretion by declining to reduce felonies to misdemeanors under Penal Code § 17(b)	People: Trial court did not abuse discretion (procedural posture noted)	Wejbe: Court should have reduced counts to misdemeanors under § 17(b)	Court: Claim forfeited—Wejbe never renewed a 17(b) motion in the trial court (the magistrate declined a preliminary‑hearing 17(b)(5) request), so no abuse shown

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (warnings required only for custodial interrogation; general on‑the‑scene questioning is not affected)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (routine roadside detentions/questions not custodial for Miranda purposes)
Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (U.S. 2012) (custody inquiry asks whether environment presents pressures akin to station‑house interrogation)
Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (U.S. 2010) (freedom‑of‑movement test is necessary but not sufficient for Miranda custody)
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (U.S. 2011) (custody inquiry is objective)
People v. Deloza, 18 Cal.4th 585 (Cal. 1998) (§ 654 precludes multiple punishment for single act or indivisible course of conduct)
People v. Jimenez, 9 Cal.5th 53 (Cal. 2020) (elements/gravamen of § 530.5(a) unlawful use of identifying information)
People v. Gaynor, 42 Cal.App.5th 794 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (distinguishing distinct harms from using identity vs. possessing instruments to defraud)
People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (Cal. 2018) (limitations on applying sentence enhancements when primary offense is reduced to misdemeanor)