People v. Brown CA3

── People v. Brown CA3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 19, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/19/26 P. v. Brown CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) THE PEOPLE, C100991 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21FE020034) v. JULIAN JASON BROWN, Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Julian Jason Brown participated in a drive-by shooting at a birthday party attended by rival gang members. A bullet struck and killed Joseph Almanza. At least four others were injured. The People charged defendant and two codefendants, Anthony Smith and Eddie Young, all members of the Oak Park Bloods, with one count of first degree murder and five counts of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle. In a joint trial, a jury found defendant and codefendant Smith guilty on all counts. The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict as to codefendant Young, and the trial court declared a mistrial as to him. Regarding defendant, in a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found various gang and firearm enhancement allegations to be true, and sentenced him to state prison for an indeterminate term of 75 years to life consecutive to a determinate term of 15 years. 1  Defendant now contends (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for murder and discharging a firearm, (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s finding that the murder was committed with premeditation and deliberation, (3) the trial court erred in admitting two Instagram live videos and a separate Instagram post, (4) this court should review the sealed transcript of an in camera hearing conducted under Evidence Code1 section 1042, and (5) he is entitled to additional presentence custody credit. We conclude substantial evidence supports defendant’s convictions and the finding of premeditation and deliberation. Defendant’s evidentiary error claims are either forfeited or fail on the merits. And our review of the sealed transcript does not disclose an abuse of discretion. However, as the People agree, defendant is entitled to additional presentence custody credit. We will modify the judgment to award 863 days of presentence custody credit and affirm the judgment as modified. BACKGROUND In the summer of 2020, two groups of Sacramento gangs were at war. A gang detective described the violence as the worst he had seen in 20 years, “just shooting after shooting after shooting.” The first group of combatants was the Oak Park Bloods and various subsets and allies of that gang. The second group was G-Mobb and their affiliated gangs, including the Del Paso Heights Bloods and the Meadowview Bloods. In addition to criminal activity, each group claimed the membership of an influential rapper. On the G-Mobb side was Donald Oliver, who went by Lavish D, and on the Oak Park Bloods side was Timothy Patterson, who went by Mozzy. The rap music aspect, which was central to the defense case, will be set forth in greater detail later in this background. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Evidence Code. 2  On May 25, 2020, about two weeks before the deadly shooting, G-Mobb affiliated gang members, including Almanza, a Del Paso Heights Bloods member, were at Discovery Park. At