People v. Brown CA5

Filed 4/21/16 P. v. Brown CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F070011 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Tulare Super. Ct. No. VCF282661) v.

KRISTIE LYNN BROWN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Darryl B. Ferguson, Judge. Gillian Black, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and Nora S. Weyl, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Peña, J. and Smith, J.

Appellant/defendant Kristie Lynn Brown entered into a plea agreement wherein she pled to certain charges in exchange for a specified sentence and the opportunity to have this court review a pretrial evidentiary ruling by the trial court that seriously impaired her anticipated defense. We reverse the judgment and remand the matter to the trial court because appellate review is not available for a pretrial evidentiary ruling when a defendant pleads guilty, and the trial court erred when it assured defendant the issue would receive appellate review. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY The relevant events that occurred in the trial court are not in dispute. Defendant was charged with two counts of what could be broadly termed welfare fraud. The first count alleged she obtained public aid through false representations (Welf. & Inst.Code § 10980, subd. (c)(2)), and the second count alleged defendant committed perjury by making false representations on her benefit application (Pen. Code, § 118). The essence of the charges was that defendant obtained welfare benefits by falsely representing her son lived with her, when her son actually lived with his aunt, defendant’s sister. Prior to the jury trial, the trial court ruled inadmissible evidence defendant wished to introduce at trial. Essentially this evidence consisted of a 2009 decision issued by an administrative law judge for the California Department of Social Services. The events leading to this decision began when Tulare County notified appellant it would stop her welfare benefits and seek reimbursement for benefits paid to defendant, because defendant’s son lived with her sister. Defendant challenged the county’s action. The decision issued by the administrative law judge concluded defendant was entitled to benefits and ordered the county to continue paying the benefits to defendant. Defendant argued this evidence established that she reasonably believed she was entitled to the benefits and therefore was not making fraudulent representations or receiving benefits improperly.