People v. Brandon CA2/5
B300932
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 2, 2021Background
- Victim (64) was beaten and stabbed to death during a burglary/robbery of his Palmdale home; crime scene showed prolonged, violent struggle and extensive blood loss.
- DNA linked Brandon to blood at the front door and coffee table; Patton’s DNA found on a pink pepper‑spray canister at the scene.
- Recorded jailhouse (Perkins) conversations: Brandon and Tulanda made admissions implicating themselves and describing Patton’s role; investigators later obtained separate custodial interviews (Miranda advisals at issue for Patton).
- At separate juries in a joint trial, both Brandon and Patton were convicted of first‑degree felony murder and first‑degree robbery; robbery and burglary special circumstances were found true for both.
- Appellate court held evidence sufficient to support Brandon’s murder (major participant + reckless indifference) and several enhancements; held evidence insufficient to show Patton acted with reckless indifference, reversed her murder conviction and special‑circumstance findings, and remanded for resentencing; directed modifications to Brandon’s abstract of judgment (strike one‑year §667.5 enhancement; reflect joint-and-several restitution).
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — felony murder / special circumstance (Brandon) | Evidence shows Brandon was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference during robbery/burglary. | Brandon argued evidence did not show reckless indifference or intent to kill. | Affirmed — substantial evidence Brandon was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference. |
| Sufficiency — felony murder / special circumstance (Patton) | Patton was a major participant and therefore liable under felony‑murder and special‑circumstance theories. | Patton argued she neither intended to kill nor acted with reckless indifference. | Reversed as to Patton — evidence insufficient to prove reckless indifference; murder conviction and special circumstances vacated; remand for resentencing. |
| Sufficiency — personal use of deadly weapon & great bodily injury (Brandon) | Admissions + dented/broken pots and coroner’s testimony show Brandon used pots and inflicted great bodily injury. | Brandon argued no direct evidence he personally struck the victim with pots. | Affirmed — sufficient evidence Brandon personally used at least one pot and caused great bodily injury. |
| Sufficiency — felon in possession (Brandon) | Gun found in converted garage where Brandon lived/recorded music; constructive possession proven. | Brandon disputed link to garage and residence. | Affirmed — constructive possession supported by residence, items, and police observation. |
| IAC — failure to request Clark factors instruction (Brandon) | Court should have given instruction on Clark factors; counsel ineffective for not requesting it. | Counsel may have tactical reasons; no record of unreasonable omission. | Rejected on direct appeal — no presumptive deficient performance; tactical explanation plausible. |
| IAC — failure to move to suppress Patton’s custodial statements (Patton) | Miranda advisement was inadequate so statements should have been suppressed; counsel ineffective for not moving. | Counsel may have reasonably left the statements in because they contained helpful exculpatory material. | Rejected on direct appeal — tactical choice plausible given other evidence and benefits of admissible statements. |
| Confrontation Clause — admission of Brandon’s Perkins statements (Patton) | Statements were testimonial and should be excluded under Bruton/Crawford. | People argued Perkins statements were nontestimonial and admissible; trial court found them trustworthy. | Rejected — on these facts Perkins statements were nontestimonial and admissible; no Bruton error on confrontation grounds. |
| Sentencing corrections | N/A | Challenged Eighth Amendment narrowing, requested resentencing adjustments and striking §667.5 enhancement. | Eighth Amendment challenge rejected; court ordered (1) strike one‑year §667.5 enhancement retroactively, (2) modify Brandon’s abstract to show joint/several restitution, (3) remand for Patton resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2015) (identifies factors for determining whether a defendant was a major participant)
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2016) (articulates factors for reckless indifference to human life)
- In re Scoggins, 9 Cal.5th 667 (Cal. 2020) (summarizes Banks/Clark and totality‑of‑circumstances approach)
- People v. Estrada, 11 Cal.4th 568 (Cal. 1995) (addressed whether courts have sua sponte duty to define “reckless indifference to human life”)
- Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1990) (Perkins operations and admissibility of undercover/covert statements)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (co‑defendant’s extra‑judicial statements and confrontation limits)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial vs. nontestimonial statements under the Confrontation Clause)
- People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (Cal. 2018) (remand and resentencing principles where convictions reversed)
- People v. Winn, 44 Cal.App.5th 859 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (retroactive application of amendments to §667.5)