People v. Brown CA2/4

Filed 5/21/25 P. v. Brown CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B328067

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA043917)

v.

DANIEL ANTONIO BROWN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert C. Vanderet, Judge. Remanded with instructions; otherwise affirmed. Patricia A. Scott, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General,

Kenneth C. Byrne, Jonathan M. Krauss and Allison H. Chung, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 1992, appellant Daniel Brown pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter. In 2022, Brown filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 The trial court denied the petition for failing to make a prima facie showing. On appeal, Brown challenges the trial court’s order. He contends that the trial court engaged in impermissible factfinding in concluding that he was the actual shooter and thus ineligible for relief. We affirm, but remand to allow appellant an opportunity to file an amended petition, in accordance with People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549 (Patton).

BACKGROUND In 1991, an information charged Brown with one count of murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), with the special allegation that he personally used a firearm in the commission of the crime (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). Brown subsequently pled no contest to one count of voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced Brown to the low term of three years in prison. In 2022, Brown filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel for Brown and the parties submitted briefs. The People’s response argued that Brown was not entitled to relief because he was the actual shooter and the sole perpetrator and thus could not have been convicted under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or a felony murder theory. In contesting Brown’s prima facie showing, the People relied on the transcript from Brown’s preliminary hearing to demonstrate why relief was unavailable as a matter of law. In particular, a witness testified at the preliminary hearing that he did not say anything to the police about the incident. However, the investigating detective testified that the witness gave details about the shooting a few weeks after the incident. According to the detective, the witness stated that he saw his acquaintance, “Toushay,” in a