People v. Sullivan CA6

Filed 8/21/20 P. v. Sullivan CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H044277 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. SS160904)

v.

MICAH BENJAMIN SULLIVAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant Micah Benjamin Sullivan of robbery relating to a purse-snatching incident. He argues his conviction must be reversed because the trial court erred when it sustained an objection to a closing argument of defense counsel about the prosecution’s burden of proof. We find any error related to defendant’s trial harmless. However, after inviting supplemental briefing regarding defendant’s entitlement to consideration for mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36, we will conditionally reverse the judgment and remand the matter to the trial court with directions to conduct a diversion eligibility hearing. Defendant’s appellate counsel also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and a supplemental petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking remand for a mental health diversion eligibility hearing. We dispose of those petitions by separate order filed this day. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.387(b)(2)(B).)

I. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS Defendant was charged with a single count of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). According to testimony at trial, a woman was walking in Salinas after dropping off her car for an oil change when she noticed a man (whom she identified as defendant) walking toward her on the sidewalk. He appeared to be “arguing with someone [who] wasn’t there.” As he came closer, the woman heard him yell something like: “ ‘Leave me alone or I’ll have to hurt someone like this nice woman.’ ” The woman became concerned, but decided to walk past. Immediately after passing him, the woman felt a tug on her purse and turned to see defendant grabbing the strap. A struggle ensued over the purse, described by the woman as a tug of war. Defendant was stronger than the woman and she was being pulled toward him. Defendant fell down but maintained his grip on the purse. The woman eventually let go because she was afraid he might have a weapon. Defendant fled, and the woman screamed for help. Multiple people called 911 to report the crime, and recordings of those calls were admitted into evidence and played for the jury. A bystander testified to seeing a scuffle on the sidewalk between a man and a woman as he drove past. He saw the man and woman both fall down and then the man (whom he also identified at trial as defendant) got up and ran away with a purse. The bystander drove after defendant and blocked his path with the car. He told defendant to give him the purse and defendant complied. When he asked defendant why he took the purse defendant responded “ ‘I’m sick, I’m sick.’ ” A police officer who responded to the 911 calls testified that he got out of his patrol car, approached defendant, and asked him if he had been involved in an incident involving a woman. Defendant initially denied any involvement, then told the officer he had found the purse on the ground. Defendant eventually admitted he took the purse from the woman and stated that he took full responsibility for his actions, which he blamed on his heroin addiction. The officer testified that defendant was calm, 2