People v. Brimmer CA1/3

── People v. Brimmer CA1/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/27/26 P. v. Brimmer CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A172913 v. DEON VONZELLE BRIMMER, (City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. 23012642) Defendant and Appellant. A jury convicted defendant Deon Brimmer of second-degree commercial burglary and vandalism. He appeals from the trial court’s sentencing decision not to treat his wobbler offense of second-degree burglary as a misdemeanor. We find no error and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On a morning in August 2023, San Francisco Police officers responded to an alarm at the Sherith Israel synagogue. The officers arrived at the synagogue, which was not open to the public at that time of day, and saw Brimmer inside wearing a blazer with a nametag and security badge that read “ ‘Sherith Israel Security.’ ” Brimmer opened the front door and told the officers there were no problems. Believing Brimmer was a security guard, the officers concluded the alarm had been accidental and left. A tenant of the synagogue arrived at the front door and was having trouble with her key when Brimmer stood and opened the door for her. 1 Brimmer mentioned something about security or “some work that they were doing outside of the synagogue” before the tenant went to her office. The synagogue’s executive director, Gordon Gladstone, received alerts from an alarm company that multiple motion sensors had been activated within the building. Gladstone arrived at the synagogue and noticed the deadbolt lock on the office door was open. He entered the office and saw Brimmer sitting at the receptionist’s desk. When Gladstone asked Brimmer to identify himself, Brimmer responded, “ ‘I’m security’ ” and said he had been hired by “the City.” Gladstone asked to see Brimmer’s identification, and Brimmer showed a California’s driver’s license but “withdrew it fairly quickly.” When Gladstone asked to see it again, Brimmer refused and “[b]ecame evasive.” Though finding Brimmer to be “calm” and “convincing in his belief that he was a security guard,” Gladstone did not believe Brimmer and activated a silent alarm. After being told to leave, Brimmer took the security blazer off and asked Gladstone who was going to pay him for the three hours he had spent working. Gladstone discovered that a window in the synagogue’s kitchen had been broken, and that one of the offices had been “aggressively rifled through.” He further discovered that someone “had attempted to disable the alarm by yanking open the alarm box,” that the wires underneath the alarm horn had been cut or disconnected, and that one of the motion sensors in the office area had been pulled off the wall. A half-consumed bottle of wine was found under a desk. The same police officers who responded to the earlier alarm returned to the synagogue. Gladstone provided them with video surveillance recordings and photographs from which the officers were able to identify Brimmer. 2 Brimmer was seen on video holding a wine bottle that had been in the kitchen’s refrigerator. A few days later, a synagogue custodian