P. v. Soriano CA2/6 filed 8/18/26

Filed 8/18/26 P. v. Soriano CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RICARDO SORIANO,
Defendant and Appellant.
2d Crim. No. B339792
(Super. Ct. No. TA158363)
(Los Angeles County)
Ricardo Soriano appeals after a jury convicted him of
willful, deliberate, and premeditated first degree murder (Pen.
Code §§ 187, subd. (a), 189; count 1) and possession of a firearm
by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 2). The jury also found
true a firearms allegation as to count 1 (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)).
The trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of 29
years to life plus 8 months.
Appellant contends the admission of a witness’s
interrogation deprived him of his constitutional rights to due
process and a fair trial. We will affirm.

-- 1 of 12 --

2
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
At about 5:00 a.m. on June 19, 2022, police responded to a
reported shooting. They found the victim Hector Herrera
slumped in the driver’s seat of a white BMW. Herrera died of a
gunshot wound to the chest. No shell casings were recovered in
the car or the surrounding area. Law enforcement never
recovered the murder weapon.
On August 4, 2022, Carolyn Serrano voluntarily spoke with
law enforcement after they had contacted her. Serrano said
Herrera dropped her off in an alley by the Mobil station where
she worked. “[A] cool little few minutes after . . . he left [she]
heard gunshots.” Serrano said she did not see what happened to
Herrera after he drove away. Serrano denied that someone ran
up to the car when Herrera dropped her off.
During the interview, Serrano stated she “got in a program
and . . . got sober, got my kids back.” At one point, she spoke
with one of her children on the phone. Serrano later said, “I work
for my money and I take care of my kids. . . . I take care of my
business, my kids, and that’s it.”
Both before and after the August 4 interview, Serrano
spoke with appellant, who was in jail. During those calls,
appellant coached Serrano on what to say, and Serrano debriefed
appellant on the interview.
After listening to jail calls, law enforcement obtained a
warrant and arrested Serrano for murder. On September 12,
2022, Detectives Brandon Bourgeois and Sarah Callian again
interviewed Serrano, whose handcuffs were removed.
At the beginning of the interview, Serrano stated she had
not been advised of her rights before. Detective Bourgeois then

-- 2 of 12 --

3
properly advised Serrano pursuant to Miranda1, and Serrano
said she understood. Serrano maintained she did not know what
happened to Herrera after he dropped her off. Detective Callian
told Serrano they had evidence showing that Serrano knew. The
following exchange occurred:
“Detective Bourgeois: Who’s Blackie [a name appellant
went by]?
“Serrano: ‘Cause I didn’t shoot him.
“Detective Bourgeois: Okay, then who did?
“Serrano: I don’t know.
“Detective Bourgeois: Because right now you’re sitting here
and eventually the person that shot him is going to be sitting
here as well.
“Serrano: Okay.
“Detective Bourgeois: Okay. You look equally as
responsible. You may not have pulled the trigger, but somebody
did and you know who did.”
Serrano denied knowing who shot Herrera or who “Blackie”
was. When confronted with the jail calls, Serrano stated
“Blackie” was her friend. Detective Bourgeois said, “This is really
kind of an opportunity for you . . . [t]o help yourself out, okay?”
Their exchange continued:
“Serrano: Help myself out with what? I didn’t do nothing.
“Detective Bourgeois: When you help out a killer-
“Serrano: If you guys have proof then why am I here?
“Detective Bourgeois: -after they killed somebody, when
you help out a killer after they kill somebody-
“Serrano: I didn’t help nobody out.
“Detective Bourgeois: You’re full of it.
1 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694]
(Miranda).

-- 3 of 12 --

4
“Serrano: I didn’t help nobody out.”
Detective Bourgeois showed Serrano a picture of appellant
and asked who it was. Serrano said she did not know. Detective
Bourgeois and Serrano disagreed as to whether Serrano had “fed
[them] a bunch of bullshit.” Serrano said, “I was fucking honest
like- up to the point, like- And after that-” Detective Callian
interjected:
“Detective Callian: [Crosstalk] We can agree to disagree on
that one, okay? We have you here and right now we’re giving you
the opportunity-
“Serrano: To what?
“Detective Callian: To tell us what happened from your
side, okay? Now this is going to determine a lot of what’s going to
happen with you. The more you cooperate, the better it is going
to be for you.
“Serrano: You mean the more I snitch, right?
“Detective Callian: I’m not asking you to snitch, I’m asking
you to cooperate.
“Serrano: [Crosstalk] No, that’s basically what I’m doing
here. No, I’m not.
“Detective Callian: But you have two kids at home.
“Serrano: Yeah, I know, they have a dad though. He got
them.
“Detective Callian: Okay.
“Detective Bourgeois: Carolyn, this is an arrest warrant.
Okay? It’s been signed by a judge.
“Serrano: Okay.
“Detective Bourgeois: For you. Okay? For the violation of
murder, okay?
“Serrano: Okay.
“Detective Bourgeois: Your bail’s two million dollars.
Okay? It’s not a fucking joke, dude.

-- 4 of 12 --

5
“Serrano: I’m not saying it’s a joke.
“Detective Bourgeois: You’re treating it like it’s a joke.
“Serrano: Yes. I’m really not. I’m really not. Okay.
“Detective Bourgeois: Carolyn, what happened, dude?
“Serrano: So what are we doing?
“Detective Bourgeois: We’re giving you an opportunity to
share what really happened.
“Serrano: I’m not sharing anything. I’m not saying shit
and I want a lawyer.
“Detective Bourgeois: Okay. That’s fine.
“Detective Callian: Alright.
“Detective Bourgeois: So, I’m not going to ask you any
more questions, okay? I want you to just sit quiet and I want you
to hear me out. Alright? We have you over in the area based off
your own statements. Just listen to me.
“Serrano: I work there.
“Detective Bourgeois: Just listen to me because you said
you want your lawyer, okay? I want you to sit quietly and we’re
going to respect your right, okay? We have you obviously over in
the area by your own statements. We have Blackie over there by
his own cell phone records, and quite frankly, the amount of
conversations that you have back and forth with him. We have
jail call recordings with you damn near on a daily basis, okay?
Where you talked to him the day we interviewed you. Before we
interviewed you. Okay? And he got panicked. We are trying to
give you an opportunity, okay? To share with us what you
obviously know, but you refuse to because of the whole snitching.
“Serrano: What I know is-
“Detective Bourgeois: Uh-uh- you got to listen. Okay?
Again, I’m trying to respect
“Serrano: Yeah sorry.

-- 5 of 12 --

6
“Detective Bourgeois: -your rights, okay? We’re here
trying to give you an opportunity, okay? To share what really
happened to help yourself out. But you’re sitting there just cold,
really kind of, I really don’t give a fuck attitude. Okay? An
arrest warrant has been signed by a judge. That’s what you’re
doing here, okay? We’re giving you the opportunity to share with
us what you do know. What we know you know, but you refuse to
do so, which is fine. That’s your obligation, that’s your- that’s
your choice. Okay? So going forward, you’re going to get booked,
[l]ike I said, for murder.
“Serrano: Yeah.
“Detective Bourgeois: Okay? If at any point you decide,
okay, that you do want to maybe talk to us, okay? And I really
want you to think hard about this one, okay? Let the jailer know
to call us, okay? And we’ll gladly come down and talk to you.
“Serrano: I don’t want a lawyer no more.
“Detective Bourgeois: Okay. You what?
“Serrano: I don’t want a lawyer no more.
“Detective Bourgeois: You don’t want a lawyer no more?
“Serrano: No.
“Detective Bourgeois: What does that mean?
“Serrano: It means, do you know who Blackie is?
“Detective Bourgeois: Well, that’s what we’re sitting here
asking you. So listen, hold on-
“Serrano: But do you know who Blackie is?
“Detective Bourgeois: Before we do that, okay? Do you
remember what I just read you as far as your rights?
“Serrano: Yup.
“Detective Bourgeois: Okay, I’m going to ask you again.
“Serrano: You know who that is though, right?
“Detective Bourgeois: Do you agree? Hold on. Do you
agree to waive those rights?

-- 6 of 12 --

7
“Serrano: Yeah.
“Detective Bourgeois: Okay.
“Detective Callian: And you want to talk to us?
“Serrano: Yes.”
Serrano indicated she was afraid of appellant. Serrano told
the detectives that appellant ran up and shot Herrera as Herrera
was dropping Serrano off. After shooting Herrera, appellant
pointed the firearm at her. Serrano stated appellant was driving
a green Honda. Video surveillance had captured a green vehicle
in the area of the shooting shortly after 4:00 a.m.
On November 30, 2022, police again interviewed Serrano
after she reached out. Serrano said someone called “Temper,” not
appellant, shot Herrera. Serrano said she “felt comfortable
enough” to speak because she heard Temper was “PC’d up.”
At trial, Serrano testified that her August 4 account was
the accurate one. As to the September 12 interview, Serrano
“said what I felt like was gonna get me out of there.” Serrano
had been romantically involved with both Herrera and appellant.
Using a Google geofence warrant, police found an account
with the name Ricardo Daniel and email blackeevx3@gmail.com.
The Google data included photos of appellant and Serrano
together, as well as a video of the victim Herrera in his vehicle
shortly after the shooting. Law enforcement identified appellant
as the person who filmed that video based on the red shoes worn.
On the night of the shooting, the device connected to the Google
account traveled to the area of the Mobil station where Serrano
worked and “lingered within the area for a little bit.” The
device’s path of travel then traced the victim’s path.
On July 1, 2022, Serrano sent a message to a person named
Vanessa: “Hey girl blacky wanted me to ask u if u can bring the
Honda he left parked outside ur trailer and his toy to my house
I’m a take care of his bail.”

-- 7 of 12 --

8
DISCUSSION
“A defendant lacks standing to complain of the violation of
a third party’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
incrimination.” (People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 965.)
“A defendant may assert a violation of his or her own right to due
process of the law and a fair trial based upon third party witness
coercion, however, if the defendant can establish that trial
evidence was coerced or rendered unreliable by prior coercion and
that the admission of this evidence would deprive the defendant
of a fair trial.” (People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 452-453
(Williams).)
Assuming appellant has not forfeited his claim by failing to
object below, the claim fails on the merits because Serrano’s
September 12 statement was not coerced.
“‘A statement is involuntary if it is not the product of “‘a
rational intellect and free will.’”’” (People v. McWhorter (2009) 47
Cal.4th 318, 346 (McWhorter).) “When ‘assessing allegedly
coercive police tactics, “[t]he courts have prohibited only those
psychological ploys which, under all the circumstances, are so
coercive that they tend to produce a statement that is both
involuntary and unreliable,”’ and have explained that ‘[w]hether
a statement is voluntary depends upon the totality of the
circumstances surrounding the interrogation.’” (People v. Wilson
(2024) 16 Cal.5th 874, 918 (Wilson).)
We independently review whether Serrano’s statement was
coerced. (See Wilson, supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 918; McWhorter,
supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 346 [voluntariness of tape-recorded
statement subject to independent review].)
Appellant contends the police violated Miranda. We agree.
During the September 12 custodial interrogation, Serrano
invoked her right to counsel. But Detective Bourgeois continued
to speak with her. His discussion of the evidence against

-- 8 of 12 --

9
appellant and Serrano constituted interrogation because it was
“reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response . . . .”
(Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) 446 U.S. 291, 301 [64 L.Ed.2d 297];
Edwards v. Arizona (1981) 451 U.S. 477 [68 L.Ed.2d 378].)
However, a statement “may be uncoerced” even if it was
elicited in violation of Miranda. (People v. Case (2018) 5 Cal.5th
1, 24.) In some cases, “deliberately continuing to question a
suspect after he has invoked his Miranda rights may undermine
a defendant’s free will by signaling that ‘no’ is not an acceptable
answer.” (Ibid.) But, here, Detective Bourgeois signaled
precisely the opposite. He indicated, twice, that he would respect
Serrano’s rights and cut her off when she attempted to speak.
Bourgeois also indicated that refusing to share what she knew
was her “obligation” and “choice.” Bourgeois’s relatively brief
entreaty did not break Serrano’s free will.
Appellant also cites the “‘implied promises of leniency’” the
detectives made. However, “‘[t]here is nothing improper in
confronting a suspect with the predicament he is in, or with an
offer to refrain from prosecuting the suspect if he will cooperate
with the police investigation.’” (People v. Badgett (1995) 10
Cal.4th 330, 355.) Our Supreme Court has “‘never held . . . that
an offer of leniency in return for cooperation with the police
renders a third party statement involuntary . . . .’” (People v.
Smith (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1134, 1170.)
Appellant highlights Detective Callian’s comment that
Serrano had “two kids at home.” But this comment simply
confronted Serrano with her predicament. Nor did Serrano
appear fazed by the comment, as she replied, “Yeah, I know, they
have a dad though. He got them.”
Appellant notes the detectives repeatedly accused Serrano
of lying. But the police can “exhort a suspect to tell the truth and
repeatedly express that they believe a suspect is lying.” (People

-- 9 of 12 --

10
v. Battle (2021) 11 Cal.5th 749, 791; see also People v. Spencer
(2018) 5 Cal.5th 642, 674 [repeated accusations of lying did not
“rise to the threshold necessary to taint the interrogation as
unlawful”].)
Appellant argues the detectives used deception by telling
“Serrano she was ‘equally responsible’ for murder if she knew the
killer’s identity or ‘help[ed] out a killer after they killed
somebody.’” Detective Bourgeois told Serrano, “You look equally
as responsible. You may not have pulled the trigger, but
somebody did and you know who did.” This is far from an
unequivocal statement regarding Serrano’s murder liability.
Detective Bourgeois later broached the subject of helping a killer
after a killing, but Serrano interrupted him. She twice said, “I
didn’t help nobody out.” Any exaggeration or deception by
Detective Bourgeois was not “‘“‘of a type reasonably likely to
procure an untrue statement.’”’” (Williams, supra, 49 Cal.4th at
p. 443.)
Serrano’s statement was not the result of protracted
haranguing. Approximately 12 minutes elapsed between the
beginning of the interview and when Serrano inculpated
appellant. Serrano was not handcuffed or physically intimidated.
Her resistance to the detectives’ overtures, “far from reflecting a
will overborne by official coercion, suggests instead a still
operative ability to calculate [her] self-interest in choosing
whether to disclose or withhold information.” (People v. Coffman
and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 58.)
Just before Serrano said she no longer wanted a lawyer,
Detective Bourgeois indicated she would be booked for murder
and could let the jailer know if she wanted to speak. Thus, the
direct impetus for Serrano’s change of heart was the simple
reality that she was about to be booked and confined for murder.
(Cf. People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 814 [coercive police

-- 10 of 12 --

11
activity must be the proximate cause of the statement, not merely
a cause in fact].) This was no police ruse—despite her statement
inculpating appellant, Serrano was booked for murder. Even
considering Serrano’s inexperience with criminal law, her
September 12 statement was not involuntary under the totality
of the circumstances. Admission of the statement did not deprive
appellant of due process or a fair trial.
Finally, appellant argues ineffective assistance of counsel
based on failure to object to admission of Serrano’s September 12
interrogation. This claim fails because, for the reasons
articulated above, it is not reasonably probable appellant could
have shown the statement was coerced had his counsel objected.
(See People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 239.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
CODY, P. J.
We concur:
YEGAN, J.
BALTODANO, J.

-- 11 of 12 --

12
Teresa P. Magno, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
Johanna Pirko, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising
Deputy Attorney General, and Michael J. Wise, Deputy Attorney
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-- 12 of 12 --