People v. Adams CA1/5

Filed 5/14/21 P. v. Adams CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A160619 SHIRA JESSIE ADAMS, Defendant and Appellant. (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUK CRCR 19-33183)

Shira Jessie Adams stabbed a pregnant girl in the neck with a knife and later pled no contest to assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)).1 The trial court denied Adams’s request for probation (§ 1203, subd. (e)(2)) and sentenced her to the midterm of three years in state prison. Adams appeals. She contends the court erred in denying probation, and that it should have sentenced her to the low term. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND In November 2019, Adams was 18 years old. She carried a four- to six- inch fixed-blade knife in her purse. One afternoon, Adams got into an

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

argument with her boyfriend’s 17-year-old sister, N.T., over a hair straightener. N.T. was five months pregnant. She lunged at Adams. Scared, Adams retrieved the knife from her purse. She stabbed N.T. in the neck, just missing N.T.’s carotid artery. Police officers arrived and found N.T. bleeding from a one-inch wound near her esophagus. N.T. was airlifted to a hospital. A. Adams pled no contest to assault with a deadly weapon, rendering her presumptively ineligible for probation absent unusual circumstances where the interests of justice would be served by granting probation. (§§ 245, subd. (a)(1); 1203, subd. (e)(2).) The probation department’s initial report outlined the criteria affecting probation eligibility (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.414)2 and the aggravating and mitigating factors (rules 4.421, 4.423). Unsure whether an “unusual circumstance” warranted probation, the department suggested the court order a diagnostic evaluation and recommendation from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR, § 1203.03). The court ordered the evaluation. The evaluation described Adams’s chaotic and abusive childhood. It also chronicled Adams’s significant substance abuse problem: she began using marijuana at age 12 and by age 17, she was frequently using methamphetamine, cocaine, and LSD. According to the evaluation, Adams suffered from amphetamine use disorder. Adams reported being diagnosed with bipolar disorder and suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. She claimed she was under the influence of methamphetamine and LSD during the incident and, as a result, was “ ‘not sure about anything that happened.’ ” Adams wanted to attend a residential drug treatment program.