People v. Brown CA2/4

Filed 5/29/14 P. v. Brown CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B249673

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA072271) v.

KISU BROWN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael V. Jesic, Judge. Affirmed. California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, and Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A jury convicted defendant Kisu Brown of petty theft (§ 484, subd. (a))1 based upon his taking of several bottles of cologne worth $309 from the Sephora store in the Topanga Westfield Mall. The evidence established that on September 2, 2012, defendant entered the store and proceeded to the men’s fragrance section. Once there, he picked up, one by one, three bottles of men’s cologne, concealed each bottle in the waistband of his pants, and walked out of the store into the mall area without having paid for the items. Oliver Caceres, a loss-prevention agent for Sephora, observed defendant’s actions.2 Caceres followed defendant through the mall. Caceres tried to get defendant’s attention by yelling “Hey.” Defendant turned, looked at Caceres, and quickly walked out of the mall into the parking lot. Caceres followed defendant, saw defendant enter a vehicle, and wrote down the vehicle’s license plate number. Caceres gave the license plate number to the police. Within a month, the police arrested defendant. Defendant did not testify at his trial. In closing argument, defense counsel, relying upon inconsistencies between Caceres’ trial testimony and his statements to the police and his testimony at the preliminary hearing, argued that the People had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, he suggested that the man in the security videotape was not defendant. (See fn. 2, ante.)