Opinion

People v. Brown CA2/6

Court: California Court of Appeal
Filed: Jun 18, 2025
Status: Unpublished
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 36.8%

The opinion

Filed 6/18/25 P. v. Brown 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B334843

(Super. Ct. No. 23PT-00746)

Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v. PUBLIC – REDACTED VERSION

OF OPINION

SHANE BROWN,

Redacts material from sealed record.1

Defendant and Appellant. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.45,

8.46(f)(1) and (f)(2).)

Shane Brown appeals an order determining him to be an

offender with a mental health disorder (OMHD) and committing

him to the State Department of State Hospitals for involuntary

treatment. (Pen. Code, § 2962 et seq.)2 We conclude that

sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s determination that

This case involves material from a sealed record. In

accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 8.46(f)(1) and

(f)(2), we have prepared both public (redacted) and sealed

(unredacted) versions of this opinion. We hereby order the

unredacted version of this opinion sealed.

2 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Brown’s severe mental disorder was a cause of or an aggravating

factor in commission of his commitment crimes. (§ 2962, subd.

(b).) We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------[REDACTED]-----------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On November 7, 2023, the Board of Parole Hearings

(Board) determined that Brown was an OMHD pursuant to the

criteria of section 2962. As a condition of parole, the Board

required him to accept treatment from the State Department of

State Hospitals.

On November 29, 2023, Brown filed a petition pursuant to

section 2966, subdivision (b) to contest the Board’s decision.

Brown personally waived his right to a jury trial. On January 30,

2024, the trial court held a hearing and received the written

reports of Doctors Dia Gunnarsson, Philip Trompetter, and Debra

Warner.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------[REDACTED]-------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------[REDACTED]----------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------.

Findings, Order, and Appeal

The trial court expressly relied upon Trompetter’s opinion

and determined that Brown met each requirement of section

2962 beyond a reasonable doubt. It denied Brown’s petition and

committed him to the State Department of State Hospitals for

treatment.

Brown appeals and contends that insufficient evidence

supports the finding that his severe mental disorder was a cause

of or an aggravating factor in his commitment offenses.

DISCUSSION

Brown asserts that Trompetter speculated that ----------------

------[REDACTED]---------------------------. He further contends that

Trompetter did not make his findings beyond a reasonable doubt

and his opinion rested upon conjecture and speculation.

In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support an order

made in OMHD proceedings, we review the entire record to

determine if reasonable and credible evidence supports the

decision of the trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v.

Hannibal (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1087, 1096; People v. Clark

(2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1082-1083.) We view the evidence

and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of the

order. (People v. Johnson (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 96, 107; Clark,

at p. 1082.) We do not reweigh the evidence or redetermine

witness credibility. (Clark, at p. 1083.) We also do not substitute

our decision for that of the trier of fact. (Ibid.)

Sufficient evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom

support the finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Brown’s

severe mental disorder was a cause of or an aggravating factor in

his commitment offenses. ------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------[REDACTED]------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------[REDACTED]----------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------.

The trial court properly relied upon Trompetter’s expert

opinion to reach its decision. The court weighed the conflicting

opinions and determined expert witness credibility, accepting

some reasons and rejecting others. Trompetter explained that

------------------------------------------[REDACTED]-----------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------. The court was

entitled to consider ---------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------.

Moreover, it is the factfinder, not the expert witness, who

must determine whether the section 2962 criteria has been

established beyond a reasonable doubt. (§ 2966, subd. (b) [“The

standard of proof shall be beyond a reasonable doubt”].)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------[REDACTED]---------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------.

DISPOSITION

We affirm the order denying the petition and committing

Brown to the State Department of State Hospitals.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J. CODY, J.

Maral Injejikian, Judge

Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

______________________________

Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant

Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Lauren Sanchez, Deputy

Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.