P. v. Brown

Filed 6/23/06 P. v. Brown CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

Cheryl Jones was killed and her husband Victor Jones was seriously wounded on April 11, 2002, when what appeared to begin as an armed robbery ended in murder and attempted murder. The district attorney charged Dante Jamahl Alexander, Ladell DeAngelo Brown and Johtell Laverne Frank with the crimes.^[1] The three defendants were tried in a single trial before separate juries. Defendant Brown's jury deadlocked and the court declared a mistrial.

This appeal involves the retrial of defendant Brown. The jury convicted him of the murder of Cheryl Jones (Pen. Code, § 187 – count one), the attempted murder of Victor Jones (§§ 187 & 664 – count three) and the robbery of Victor Jones (§ 211 – count four).^[2] The jury acquitted defendant of robbing Cheryl Jones as alleged in count two. It found true allegations of aggravated firearm use. (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) & (d).) In separate proceedings, the court found true allegations defendant had been convicted of a serious or violent felony (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12), and had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of life without the possibility of parole plus 74 years to life.

On appeal defendant argues he is entitled to reversal because the admission he shot Victor Jones was the result of unlawful and coercive interrogation, specifically, an explicit promise that defendant could be with his baby boy if he admitted shooting one of the victims of attempted robbery. Defendant also contends the court committed reversible error when it excluded expert testimony to explain how interrogation techniques may cause a suspect to confess. We conclude neither contention has merit and affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Robbery and Shooting:

Jaynelle Frank checked into room 106 at the Gold Rush Inn in Sacramento on Monday, April 8, 2002. Defendant, the father of Jaynelle's unborn child, was staying at the Inn with her. Jaynelle's younger sister, Johtell Frank, checked into room 108 at the Gold Rush Inn on the same day. With Johtell at the Inn was her boyfriend and defendant's best friend, Dante Alexander.^[3]

The victims, Victor Jones and his wife Cheryl, checked into room 207 at the Gold Rush Inn early the following evening, Tuesday, April 9, 2002, at approximately 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. Prior to meeting defendant, Victor purchased and consumed a quantity of cocaine on G Parkway before returning to the Inn around 12:00 a.m. on April 9. Victor met defendant in the parking lot at about midnight on April 9 and bought cocaine from him.

Later, in the early morning hours of April 10, defendant sold Victor more cocaine. Over the next several hours, Victor purchased approximately $100 worth of cocaine from defendant on credit. In exchange for the extension of credit, Victor allowed defendant to borrow his Kia van, which was on loan from the dealership. Defendant left in the van with Dante and returned around 2:00 or 2:30 a.m. Victor purchased more cocaine on credit and defendant kept the car keys. When Victor went to defendant's room between 4:00 and 5:00 a.m. to ask for more cocaine, defendant told him he had no more.

Around 8:00 a.m. on April 10, defendant and Jaynelle accompanied Victor to pick up and cash his paycheck. Defendant saw Victor's paycheck which was over $500. Victor paid defendant what he owed for the cocaine, and defendant asked if he could borrow the van to take Jaynelle to her prenatal appointment. Victor agreed when defendant promised to sell him more cocaine.

Defendant took the van, and Victor and his wife stayed at the Inn to smoke the cocaine. Defendant checked in with Victor from time to time, sold him more cocaine, and left again with Dante in the van. Victor received a telephone call from defendant around 6:00 p.m. on April 10 informing him that the van had been stolen. Victor did not believe the story and told defendant to return to the Inn.

When defendant returned to the Inn with Dante about 20 minutes later, Victor bought more cocaine. Victor told the defendant the explanation about the van was â€