People v. Brannigan CA3

Filed 10/10/25 P. v. Brannigan CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C102226

v. (Super. Ct. No. 09F06130)

JASON RAYMOND BRANNIGAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2011, a jury found defendant Jason Raymond Brannigan guilty on several counts related to acts of domestic violence. The trial court found true a prior serious felony enhancement, a prior prison term enhancement, and an on-bail enhancement, and sentenced defendant to 18 years eight months in prison.

1

In 2024, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation recommended that the trial court recall defendant’s sentence and resentence him under Penal Code section 1172.75.1 In a subsequent resentencing hearing, the trial court struck the prior prison term enhancement but declined further sentencing reductions, resentencing defendant to 17 years eight months in prison. Defendant now contends that in resentencing him, the trial court relied on factors not established by the jury and/or failed to consider appropriate factors warranting relief. Finding no error or abuse of discretion, we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Because the parties do not dispute the facts set forth in the probation report and rely on them in their briefing, we use those facts in the background portion of this opinion. (See, e.g., County of El Dorado v. Misura (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 73, 77; People v. Ruiloba (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 674, 684.) In 2009, defendant and the victim had been dating for about four years when the victim fled with her children, describing defendant as “extremely violent” and “capable of killing her.” Defendant had previously assaulted the victim and threatened to kill her. He had locked her in her room and taken her phone so she could not call law enforcement. A jury convicted defendant of domestic violence (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), false imprisonment (§ 236), vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(1)), and two counts of criminal threats (§ 422). Based on defendant’s admissions, the trial court found the following allegations true: defendant had a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), he was released on bail when he committed the current offenses (§ 12022.1), and he was convicted of domestic violence within