People v. Smith CA2/2

Filed 11/24/25 P. v. Smith CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B338262

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA518805) v.

AHJANAE SMITH,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:

Defendant and appellant Ahjanae Smith (defendant) appeals the order denying her motion for mental health diversion (Pen. Code,1 § 1001.36). Her appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues; we notified defendant of her counsel’s brief and gave her leave to file, within 30 days, her own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument she might wish to have considered.

1 Unless otherwise designated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Defendant filed no such brief or letter. We have reviewed the record and, finding no error, we affirm.

BACKGROUND On March 1, 2024, an information was filed charging defendant in count 1 with grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)) and in count 2 receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). In count 1, it was further alleged defendant committed the offense while she was out of custody on bail or on her own recognizance within the meaning of section 12022.1. It was further alleged defendant suffered a prior strike, within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law, and served a prior prison term under section 1170, subdivision (h). On April 8, 2024, defendant filed a motion for mental health diversion, pursuant to section 1001.36, along with a diversion report by the psychologist who evaluated her. The psychologist opined defendant “me[t] criteria for treatment in the community.” In her motion, defendant argued: (1) she “has been diagnosed with an unspecified mood disorder, stimulant use disorder, opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder, and cannabis use disorder”; (2) the “disorders were a significant factor in the commission of the charged offenses”; and (3) the evaluating doctor “opines that [defendant’s] symptoms of her mental disorders that motivated her behavior in this case would respond to mental health treatment.” Furthermore, defendant agreed to consent to diversion, waive her right to a speedy trial, and comply with treatment. Finally, she asserted she was “not charged with a disqualifying offense” and would “not pose any significant risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.” On April 19, 2024, the People filed a written opposition to defendant’s motion. The People argued diversion was not appropriate because: (1) at the time defendant’s case was filed, defendant had four pending cases involving similar activity; (2) the probation report indicated “defendant was believed responsible for 44 Rite Aid thefts totaling $39,000 in total loss”;