People v. Brierly CA3

Filed 9/8/23 P. v. Brierly CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097532

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CRF210005206, v. CRF210005634, CRF210006008) MICHAEL PINE BRIERLY,

Defendant and Appellant.

After the trial court denied defendant Michael Pine Brierly’s motion for mental health diversion, he pleaded no contest to a series of crimes including vandalism, threats, stalking, and resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer. The trial court placed defendant on probation for two years. On appeal, defendant argues we should reverse and remand the case for the trial court to reconsider his application for mental health diversion due to recent changes to Penal Code, section 1001.36, effective January 1, 2023. (Senate Bill No. 1223 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1223); Stats. 2022, ch. 735.) The People agree. We reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider defendant’s application.

1

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS As explained by the probation report, these three cases arise from three different events in 2021. In the first encounter (the screen door case – case No. 21F05634), the victim heard a knock on his door and observed defendant walking away. When the victim opened his front door, he found a gash in the security screen door. Defendant said, “Yeah, I did that.” When the victim’s father arrived at the apartment, defendant ran into his own apartment, shook his own security door, and waved a black object at the father. The victim also told law enforcement he heard a loud banging noise from the garage and when he inspected the area, he noticed the garage door had been stabbed with a knife-like instrument. The next day (the tire slashing case – case No. 21F05206), the victim’s father and another man drove up in a van and parked near an open garage door. Defendant came out of the garage brandishing a pocket knife threating to kill the father. He was four or five feet away. In response, the father pulled out a handgun and told defendant not to come closer or he would shoot. Defendant put his arms out by his sides and said, “You’re not going to do it . . . .” The father backed away and got back into the van and locked the door. Defendant approached the van, stabbed a tire (flattening it), and returned to his own home. As he retreated into the garage, defendant threw up gang signs and said words that did not make sense. Defendant popped in and out of his house until officers arrived, and at least once, yelled profanity at the father during this time. When law enforcement arrived, they used their public address system to order defendant to come outside. Defendant did not answer. Law enforcement arrested defendant later that day.