Opinion

People v. Brown CA2/6

Court
California Court of Appeal
Filed
Jun 22, 2022
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 8.9%

The opinion

Filed 6/22/22 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B317044

(Super. Ct. No. 21PT-00562)

Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

LATION BROWN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Lation Brown appeals an order of the superior court

committing him for treatment as a mentally disordered offender

(MDO). (Pen. Code, § 2960.) He waived his right to a jury trial.

At trial medical experts and Brown testified. The court found

Brown met the statutory requirements for an MDO commitment.

We appointed counsel for Brown on this appeal. After

reviewing the record, Brown’s counsel filed a brief under People v.

Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, and stated he was unable to

raise any arguable issues for this appeal. Brown was notified of

his right to file his own brief.

In his brief, Brown makes a number of claims that are not

part of the record and he states facts without citing to the record.

We cannot consider these claims because review must be confined

to the record on appeal.

It appears Brown attempts to challenge the evidence in

support of the trial court’s findings. He testified his mental

illness did not cause him to commit arson. But the trial court did

not find Brown’s testimony to be credible. We do not weigh the

evidence or decide the credibility of the witnesses. Those are

matters exclusively decided by the trial court. (People v. Ochoa

(1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206.) In deciding the sufficiency of the

evidence, we must draw all reasonable inferences in support of

the court’s order and findings. (Ibid.)

Dr. Grant Stoll, a psychologist, testified Brown suffers from

a severe mental disorder that “was a cause or an aggravating

factor in all of his offenses for which he was incarcerated.”

Dr. Kevin Perry testified Brown’s “severe mental health

disorder was at least an aggravating factor in each of those

offenses.” The disorder was not in remission and cannot be kept

in remission without treatment. Brown posed a substantial

danger of physical harm to others. The evidence is sufficient to

support the trial court’s findings.

2

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

TANGEMAN, J.

3

Timothy S. Covello, Judge

Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

______________________________

Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

4

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.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.