People v. Brown

Filed 11/26/24

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO APPELLATE DIVISION

THE PEOPLE, Appellate Division No.: CA296089 Trial Court Case No.: M288983DV Plaintiff(s) and Respondent(s), Trial Court Location: Central Division

v. DECISION/STATEMENT OF REASONS ROBERT LAMONT BROWN, (CCP § 77(d)) BY THE COURT

Defendant(s) and Appellant(s).

APPEAL from the November 1, 2023, verdict, and December 5, 2023, sentence, Judge Marian Gaston. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED with instructions in part. The issue in this case is whether Appellant’s Supervised Own Recognizance (“SOR”) release requirements were as custodial or restraining as a statutory home detention program pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.018. In order to be entitled to custody credits under Gerson, a defendant "must establish that the terms of his release were as 'custodial, or restraining' as a statutory home detention program pursuant to section 1203.018." (People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1089.) For the reasons discussed below, this Court finds as a matter of law Appellant’s SOR requirements were not as custodial or restraining as a statutory home detention and that the trial court awarded custody credits in error.

DECISION/STATEMENT OF REASONS (CCP § 77(d)) BY THE COURT

Procedural and Factual History In a complaint filed on October 6, 2023, Appellant was charged with one count of Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a). He was arraigned on October 6, 2023, and was released on SOR with a condition of GPS monitoring. Additionally, a Criminal Protective Order (“CPO”) was issued prohibiting Appellant from contacting or being within 100 yards of the protected parties, their home, schools, vehicles or places of employment. A jury trial began on October 30, 2023. The victim testified at trial. She had been married to Appellant for 6 years and had filed for divorce in August of 2023. On October 4, 2023, they had an argument about her vaccinating their children. She tried to leave to de-escalate the situation. As she was trying to leave, Appellant reached through the driver side window of the car, turned off the car, and removed the key. She attempted to roll up the window and Appellant bit her on the shoulder. After she exited the vehicle, Appellant moved it and removed parts from the engine to make the car inoperable. The victim went to the leasing office and called 911. Appellant took the children and drove away. Upon arrival, the police accompanied the victim to her apartment to determine if the children were there. Appellant used the remote speakers from the camera system to tell police they could not be in the apartment. An employee at the apartment complex testified that she heard the argument between Appellant and the victim and observed the bite mark on the victim’s arm. The community manager for the apartment complex testified Appellant appeared very upset during the argument. She also saw the bite mark on the victim’s arm and described seeing teeth marks all the way around. An expert witness testified for the prosecution regarding the cycle of violence in domestic violence relationships. SDPD Officer Christman testified that when he arrived on scene Appellant told officers to leave and claimed because he was the head of the household, officers had no right to be inside the home. Officer Christman also had responded to a prior incident on September 8, 2023, where Appellant slapped a cell phone out of the victim’s hand while she was recording an argument. SDPD Officer Yeatman testified that he responded to the October 4, 2023, call and observed a bite mark on the victim’s arm. He testified he went with the victim to the apartment and described hearing Appellant yell at officers through security camera speakers. -2- DECISION/STATEMENT OF REASONS (CCP § 77(d)) BY THE COURT