People v. Hawkins CA3
Filed 11/22/24 P. v. Hawkins CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C099732
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23FE004375)
v.
KET THEODORE HAWKINS,
Defendant and Appellant.
Following the denial of his request for pretrial mental health diversion pursuant to Penal Code section 1001.36,1 defendant Ket Theodore Hawkins pled no contest to the unlawful possession of cocaine for sale. Hawkins now appeals the denial of his diversion request, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by finding Hawkins’ mental health
1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
disorder was not a significant factor in the commission of his crime and, thus, ineligible for diversion. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. BACKGROUND In March 2023, law enforcement found Hawkins in possession of 26.73 grams of cocaine and 331 fentanyl pills. The People charged Hawkins with possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351). Hawkins pled not guilty and filed a request for pretrial mental health diversion pursuant to section 1001.36. The People opposed the request. In support of his request, Hawkins included main jail mental health assessments conducted in June 2023, which indicated Hawkins suffered from adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. Hawkins reported that his cousin had recently been killed in a car accident; he also recently lost his brother and another cousin. He was having trouble sleeping and thought maybe “God” was sending him a message to “ ‘clean up’ ” his life. The treatment plan identified Hawkins’ target symptoms as “[l]ow mood, grief, and trouble sleeping.” The goals were to “[m]aintain safety [and] improve mood.” Hawkins also relied on a crisis assessment conducted in August 2023. Hawkins reported to the provider that he was having “flashbacks, nightmares, crying spells, [and] intrusive thoughts about past trauma.” Hawkins was feeling “deep sadness” about losing friends and family and being in jail. He reported “pacing, racing thoughts, and fidgeting.” In the portion of the crisis assessment titled “[c]ircumstances leading to current crisis” Hawkins’ care provider wrote “[c]lient was likely experiencing mental health symptoms while committing a crime; client is now incarcerated.” The crisis assessment concluded with the following diagnoses: major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, “[o]pioid use, unspecified with unspecified opioid-induced disorder,” and cannabis use unspecified.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)