People v. Brinston

── People v. Brinston ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/28/26 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A173470 v. JAMES BRINSTON, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR-24193- Defendant and Appellant. 1) James Brinston appeals from the trial court’s denial of his request for compassionate release under Penal Code section 1172.2. 1 The trial court found that although Brinston was medically incapacitated and therefore presumptively entitled to compassionate release, the presumption was overcome by its finding that Brinston was an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. The trial court relied on information from Brinston’s parole hearing three years earlier, when the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) found Brinston had no understanding of his own criminal behavior and scored highly on certain risk assessments despite having some physical limitations. The trial court failed to recognize, however, that Brinston’s physical condition had changed significantly and materially in the three years following the denial of parole. By the time of the section 1 Undesignated statutory citations are to the Penal Code. 1 1172.2 hearing, Brinston lacked any residual lower extremity function, was belted into a customized wheelchair to keep him from falling out, displayed progressive intention tremor, was unable to raise his shoulders, and suffered from fecal incontinence and constant urinary incontinence that was causing chronic infection of his thighs and buttocks. Brinston was also diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis, a progressing and permanent condition that left him as stiff as a mannequin, prevented him from rotating his head, and made it difficult for his caretakers to perform basic hygiene for him. Brinston’s physical condition forecloses any realistic possibility of Brinston harming others, even if he were still predisposed to do so as the trial court found. We therefore conclude that the trial court’s denial of Brinston’s request for compassion release was an abuse of discretion and must be reversed. BACKGROUND In 1996, Brinston was 38 years old and went on two dates with a 20-year-old woman. 2 A few days later, Brinston helped 2 Many of the facts we recite are contained in the probation report and other documents placed in the confidential clerk’s transcript. Brinston himself cites and relies on these confidential materials without seeking to file his brief under seal, which we treat as a waiver of the confidentiality. (People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 617, fn. 38, overruled on other grounds by Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1060 & fn. 13 & superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 355–356; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.47(c)(2) [to maintain confidentiality parties can move to file a document under seal].) 2 the woman move to a new home. She told Brinston she wanted to end the relationship. Brinston surreptitiously took a knife from the kitchen and called her to the bathroom, complaining that there was no soap. When she came to help him, he threatened her with the knife and struggled with her when she tried to run away. They wound up in the bedroom, where, pointing the knife toward the victim, Brinston held her down while he orally copulated her, placed his fingers in her vagina, and raped her. The victim placed a monitored call to Brinston from the police department. Brinston admitted he had made a mistake, said they could work it out and he would go to counseling with her, and asked her not to report the rape. Brinston pleaded guilty to