People v. Prokopowicz CA1/1

Filed 3/7/25 P. v. Prokopowicz CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, A166800 v. (Contra Costa County GREGORY PROKOPOWICZ, Super. Ct. No. 05002014058) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Pursuant to a negotiated agreement, Gregory Prokopowicz pleaded guilty to the willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of his wife. Under Penal Code2 section 1026, Prokopowicz also pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity and proceeded to a bench trial on that issue, contending that at the time of the murder “he was operating under the delusional premise that his wife had been planning his death and that he was at risk for being burned to death where he was living.” The trial court found that Prokopowicz had

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California

Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. We provide a limited factual summary because our opinion is unpublished and the parties know, or should know, “the facts of the case and its procedural history.” (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) 2 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

failed to prove he was legally insane at the time of the murder, and Prokopowicz was sentenced to 25 years to life in state prison. (§ 25.) In this appeal, he argues “the court erred by relying on” People v. Leeds (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 822 (Leeds), which examined self-defense principles in the context of an insanity defense. We conclude there was no prejudicial error and affirm the judgment accordingly. “Judgments and orders are presumed correct, and the party attacking a judgment or order has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating error. (People v. Neilson (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1534.) On appeal, the substantial evidence test applies. (People v. Powell (2018) 5 Cal.5th 921, 957.) When the error is “legal” and “not merely factual” in nature, prejudice is presumed and reversal is required “absent a basis in the record to find that the verdict was actually based on a valid ground.” (People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129.) As we explain below, there is such a basis in the record here, so we cannot presume prejudice; instead, we conclude that the purported error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (See People v. Jantz (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1283, 1296.) “In any criminal proceeding . . . in which a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is entered, this defense shall be found by the trier of fact only when the accused person proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act and of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense.” (§ 25, subd. (b).) Under this standard, “if a person is incapable, because of a mental disease or defect, of understanding that his actions are morally wrong—that is, in violation of generally accepted standards of moral obligation—then that person is legally insane, regardless