Opinion
C098318
04-10-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAYLIN LAIN BROWN, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Super. Ct. Nos. 21CF04164, 22CF05480)
MAURO, ACTING P. J.
In 2021, in case No. 21CF04164 (case 164), defendant Daylin Lain Brown pleaded no contest to felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)), and the trial court imposed a split sentence consisting of one year in county prison and two years on mandatory supervision. The following year defendant pleaded no contest to felony vandalism in case No. 22CF05480 (case 480) and admitted violating the conditions of mandatory supervision in case 164. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel referenced information in the record pertaining to defendant's mental health. The trial court sentenced defendant to county prison for the upper term of three years in case 164 and eight months (one-third the middle term) in case 480.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Defendant now claims the trial court (1) misunderstood its sentencing discretion because it did not impose a presumptive lower term, and (2) abused its discretion in disregarding mitigating circumstances.
The first contention is forfeited and the second contention lacks merit. We will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court said it read and considered the original and supplemental probation reports. The reports indicated defendant had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Defense counsel argued against imprisonment, citing defendant's mental health. In sentencing defendant to the upper term, the trial court found the following aggravating circumstances: defendant's numerous prior adult convictions, his prior prison term, and that his performance on probation and mandatory supervision had been unsatisfactory. The trial court said it was unable to find any factors in mitigation although it noted that defendant may have been struggling with a mental or physical condition that significantly reduced culpability for the crimes. Defense counsel referenced a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and cannabis use disorder. The trial court concluded the aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating circumstances.
DISCUSSION
I
Defendant argues the trial court did not exercise informed discretion because it "was either unaware of, or misunderstood, section 1170, subdivision (b)(6)(A)'s presumptive mandate to impose the lower term." As relevant here, section 1170, subdivision (b)(6)(A) provides that "unless the court finds that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances that imposition of the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice, the court shall order imposition of the lower term if any of the following was a contributing factor in the commission of the offense: [¶] (A) The person has experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma, including, but not limited to, abuse, neglect, exploitation, or sexual violence."
The People respond that the contention is forfeited because defendant did not object in the trial court. Defendant argues against forfeiture, citing People v. Panozo (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 825, 840. Defendant explains that as in Panozo, his contention is not based on the trial court's exercise of discretion, but rather on the trial court's failure to understand such discretion. Here, however, there is no indication the trial court misunderstood its discretion. Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume the trial court understood and properly applied the law. (People v. Thomas (2011) 52 Cal.4th 336, 361.)
On this record, because defendant did not assert a specific objection in the trial court based on section 1170, subdivision (b)(6), the contention is forfeited on appeal. (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 353; People v. Tilley (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 772, 778.)
II
Defendant next argues the trial court abused its discretion and violated his due process rights by disregarding the mitigating circumstances of defendant's mental illness and intellectual disability. The contention lacks merit because the record indicates the trial court considered those circumstances. It noted that defendant may have been struggling with a mental or physical condition that significantly reduced culpability for the crimes, but said it was unable to find any factors in mitigation, and that the aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating circumstances.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: DUARTE, J., FEINBERG, J.