People v. Farfan CA3

Filed 11/19/24 P. v. Farfan CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099146

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CRF20-0008206, 20F8206) v.

DANIEL ANACLETO FARFAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Daniel Anacleto Farfan appeals from the denial of his petition for pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36.1 He argues the trial court abused its discretion when it found defendant unsuitable for diversion on the basis that he posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Because substantial evidence supports the trial court’s determination, we will affirm the judgment.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

BACKGROUND On December 3, 2020, defendant fired multiple shots from an AR-15 style rifle at a neighboring apartment building. Several witnesses took cover or rushed into their homes. After law enforcement surrounded his apartment building, defendant walked out with a handgun and multiple knives in his waistband. The responding officers told defendant he was under arrest and ordered him to the ground. Defendant moved to the ground but refused to obey further orders not to move. Ultimately, officers apprehended defendant. Numerous bullet holes were found in the walls of the neighboring apartments; at least one bullet penetrated into an apartment. No one was injured. Several days before the incident, defendant sent a sexually explicit text message to his college tutor. The People charged defendant with four counts of shooting at an inhabited dwelling (§ 246) and four counts of discharging a firearm with gross negligence (§ 246.3). In January 2023, defendant petitioned for pretrial mental health diversion pursuant to section 1001.36. The trial court had denied a prior petition for mental health diversion without prejudice. In support of his 2023 petition, defendant included a letter from his therapist stating that because of his stability with his medications and his regular attendance at program appointments, defendant did not currently pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety in the community. In addition, defendant pointed to his de minimis criminal record, his successful treatment, and his high functionality since the shooting. However, at a hearing on the petition, defendant’s counsel admitted it was “but for the grace of God” that the shooting did not result in any injury. The trial court denied the petition, concluding that defendant was not suitable for mental health diversion because he posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community. The trial court referenced People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138 (Whitmill), in which the appellate court reversed the denial of a diversion petition after the trial court found the defendant posed an unreasonable risk to