People v. Zaragoza CA1/4

Filed 2/25/26 P. v. Zaragoza CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A171940 v. MIGUEL ZARAGOZA, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. Nos. 022401003, Defendant and 022200533) Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 In August 2024, Zaragoza was charged with two counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code,2 § 459), driving or taking a vehicle without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), receiving a stolen motor vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a)), and escape (§ 4532, subd. (b)(1)). The complaint further alleged as to all counts that Zaragoza committed the offenses while on bail (§ 12022.1). As to the burglary counts, it was alleged that Zaragoza had committed the burglaries while a person was present (§ 462, subd. (a)), and

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to

California Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 8.1. 2 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal

Code.

that the offenses were violent felonies (§ 667.5, subd. (c)). As to the vehicle-related counts, it was alleged that Zaragoza had a prior auto theft conviction (§ 666.5). In September 2024, the trial court declared a doubt as to Zaragoza’s mental competency. After receiving a report from the expert appointed to evaluate Zaragoza, the trial court found Zaragoza incompetent to stand trial and referred him to the appropriate agencies for reports regarding placement. Resolving this appeal does not require us to discuss the underlying facts or the details of Zaragoza’s mental condition. In November 2024, the trial court issued an order committing Zaragoza to the Department of State Hospitals for a period of up to two years and authorizing the administration of antipsychotic medication to Zaragoza as needed, including on an involuntary basis. Zaragoza appeals from the trial court order authorizing the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication. He argues, among other claims, that the entry of an involuntary medication order without an evidentiary hearing violated his rights to due process and equal protection. In May 2025, while the appeal was pending, Zaragoza was restored to competency. His commitment and the related involuntary medication order were terminated and criminal proceedings were reinstated. Less than one month later, Zaragoza pled no contest to one count of burglary in exchange for probation and 270 days in county jail.