People v. Braun CA1/4

Filed 6/27/16 P. v. Braun CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A146716 v. BRUCE OLIVER BRAUN, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR490129) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Bruce Braun appeals an order denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis. His counsel has filed a brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has filed a supplemental brief. We are familiar with the facts underlying this appeal from our review of People v. Braun (Feb. 11, 2010, A120746 [nonpub. opn.] (Braun I)). There, defendant appealed two judgments, one entered after a jury found him guilty of three counts of lewd acts with a child, Jane Doe 1, and one entered after he pled no contest to one count of committing a lewd act with a child, Jane Doe 2. As we explained in Braun I, the 2006 complaint alleging the crimes against Jane Doe 1 in case No. SCR-490129 (the Jane Doe 1 case) had originally included allegations of a number of offenses against Jane Doe 2 as well. The counts as to Jane Doe 2 were later dismissed as time-barred. Charges related to Jane Doe 2 were again filed against defendant in a separate case, case No. SCR-517653 (the Jane Doe 2 case), in August 2007. Defendant demurred on the ground the charges were barred by the statute of limitations, and the trial court overruled the demurrer.

1

The trial in the Jane Doe 1 case took place in September 2007. At that trial, Jane Doe 2 testified pursuant to Evidence Code section 1108 regarding sexual offenses defendant had committed against her. The jury found defendant guilty of three counts of committing lewd acts upon Jane Doe 1. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) Defendant later pled no contest in the Jane Doe 2 case to one count of committing a lewd act on a child. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) In his appeal from the two judgments, defendant raised a number of contentions; among them, he argued that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Jane Doe 2’s testimony under Evidence Code section 1108 in the Jane Doe 1 case, that the trial court should have dismissed the Jane Doe 2 case for delay in bringing it to trial, and that the continuing pendency of the Jane Doe 2 case prejudiced his ability to defend himself in the Jane Doe 1 action. According to defendant, because the Jane Doe 2 case remained pending rather than being dismissed, he was forced to choose between failing to present a vigorous defense in the Jane Doe 1 case and revealing to the prosecution the defense strategy he intended to pursue in the Jane Doe 2 case. He also argued that the Jane Doe 2 case should have been dismissed for violation of his constitutional right to due process and a speedy trial. We rejected all of defendant’s arguments and affirmed the judgments. Defendant filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis and petition for writ of mandate in this court in August 2015, arguing that the Jane Doe 2 case should not have been reinstated after the charges relating to her were dismissed and Jane Doe 2’s testimony should not have been admitted in the Jane Doe 1 case. (In re Braun (Aug. 13, 2015, A145848) [pet. denied].)1 We denied the petition. In October 2015, defendant, in propria persona, brought a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the trial court in the Jane Doe 1 case, on the grounds that the trial court erred in (1) allowing Jane Doe 2 to testify in the Jane Doe 1 case and (2) allowing the Jane Doe 2 case to proceed after the allegations relating to Jane Doe 2 were dismissed from the original complaint. The trial court denied the petition on the ground that the