People v. Tapia CA4/1

Filed 12/23/20 P. v. Tapia CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D076793

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF001011)

ANGEL TAPIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Poli Flores, Jr., and Juan Ulloa, Judges. Reversed.

Matthew R. Garcia, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Minh U. Le, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Defendant Angel Tapia appeals the court’s October 29, 2019 order denying his petition to modify the terms of a protective order to allow him to resume living in the family home. He contends that the court abused its

discretion when it summarily denied his petition, as the trial judge had only been assigned the case about 30 minutes before ruling on the petition; that before the case was reassigned as a result of the prosecutor’s peremptory challenge, the previous judge was contemplating allowing defendant to return home, after noting the substantial progress he had made on probation, including completing a 52-week anger management course; and that once the case was reassigned, the new judge failed to follow the law in analyzing the

various factors required by Penal Code1 section 1203.3, subdivision (b)(6). As we explain, we conclude the court abused its discretion under the circumstances of this case. We therefore reverse the order denying the modification petition. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND At the time of the offense in this case, defendant was 19 years old. Before the incident in question, defendant had lived with his grandmother, who raised him and became his legal guardian when he was 13 years old. Defendant’s two younger sisters, who were about 11 or 12 years old at the time of the incident, also lived in the home. As a child, defendant was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Defendant also suffered from cognitive development disability, memory lapses, and has had difficulty understanding instructions. At or near the time of the offenses in this case, doctors at the Imperial County Behavioral Health Services had prescribed defendant anti-depressants and antipsychotic medications to keep his mental and physical health stable. About a month before the incident, doctors discontinued some of defendant’s medication, leading to a change in his behavior.