People v. Najdawi CA3

Filed 12/3/24 P. v. Najdawi CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C099913

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21FE005575)

v.

TEYSEER ZAID NAJDAWI,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Teyseer Zaid Najdawi asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We will affirm.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS Defendant was charged in June 2019 by way of an amended information with battery on a nonconfined person by a prisoner. (Pen. Code, § 4501.5; statutory section citations that follow are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.) It was alleged that defendant had a prior strike, based on a 2011 conviction for murder. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-

1

(i), 1170.12.) Three aggravating factors were alleged. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 4.421(a)(1), 4.421(b)(1), 4.421(b)(3)); rules citations that follow are to the California Rules of Court unless otherwise stated.) In December 2022, defense counsel and the prosecution filed a stipulated statement noting that defendant was currently being prosecuted in Kern County case No. DF015855A (case No. 15855A) (case No. 15855A is not at issue in this appeal). In case No. 15855A, defense counsel had twice declared a doubt as to defendant’s competency to stand trial. (§ 1367 et seq.) The first time, the trial court found defendant not competent to stand trial and referred defendant for competency training. Defendant was subsequently found competent to stand trial, and criminal proceedings were reinstated. His counsel then declared a doubt again, and an evaluating psychologist opined that he was incompetent. In November 2022, the trial court again found defendant was not competent to stand trial and referred defendant for competency training to the Department of State Hospitals or the prison psychiatric inpatient program. Accordingly, in the instant case, defense counsel declared a doubt as to defendant’s competency to stand trial. Both defense counsel and the prosecution asked the trial court to suspend proceedings and consider the issue of defendant’s current competency. The statement included a copy of the psychologist report prepared in case No. 15855A. The parties asked the trial court to issue the same placement order as in case No. 15855A. Later that month, the trial court in this matter found defendant mentally incompetent to stand trial and suspended proceedings. (§ 1367 et seq.) As requested by the parties, the trial court referred defendant to the California Department of State Hospitals or the prison psychiatric inpatient program. In May 2023, the trial court received a report saying defendant had been restored to competency. In a hearing later that month, the trial court found defendant was competent to stand trial and reinstated criminal proceedings.