People v. Brians CA2/6

Filed 6/21/23 P. v. Brians CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B323941 (Super. Ct. No. 19F-07233) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

MICHAEL ANTHONY BRIANS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Michael Anthony Brians molested several young girls in his family over a period of nearly three decades. After a jury convicted him of seven counts of committing lewd acts on a child under 14 years old (Pen. Code,1 § 288, subd. (a)) and one count of sexually penetrating a child under 14 with a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (j)), the trial court ordered Brians to pay $475,000 in restitution for the noneconomic damages incurred by his victims: $50,000 for each year of abuse one of his victims was forced to

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code.

endure, and $25,000 for each violation of section 288 committed against two other victims. Brians contends these orders should be vacated because the court did not specify why it chose the $25,000 and $50,000 restitution baselines. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY At the restitution hearing, prosecutors moved the trial court to order Brians to pay $475,000 to his three victims for their “past and future psychological harm”: $400,000 to B.D., or $50,000 per year of sexual abuse she endured; $50,000 to J.D., or $25,000 for each lewd act Brians committed against her; and $25,000 to K.D. for the lewd act Brians committed against her. Prosecutors said they decided on these figures based on the analysis in People v. Smith (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 415 (Smith). They noted the restitution ordered in that case included losses the victim endured in the years after the defendant abused her. Here, in contrast, the requested restitution was based on the years during which Brians committed his crimes, even though “the sexual abuse did go on much longer.” The trial court considered the victims’ trial testimony and the impact statements presented at sentencing when determining the appropriate amount of restitution. B.D. said that Brians subjected her to “[r]epeated sexual acts, includ[ing] masturbation, mutual masturbation, oral copulation, digital penetration, and ultimately sexual intercourse” for more than 10 years. He threatened to harm her, her family, or himself if she did not comply with his demands, and would “frequently brandish a weapon.” Brians started abusing J.D. when she was just eight or nine years old. At the time of trial J.D. still “[didn’t] think [she] ever really did” deal with the trauma caused by Brians’s abuse.