People v. Clark CA3

Filed 12/15/21 P. v. Clark CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C091846

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. NCR96565)

v.

CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM CLARK,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Christopher William Clark pleaded guilty to one count of robbery and admitted several enhancement allegations. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 20 years in state prison. On appeal, defendant argues this case must be conditionally reversed and remanded for the trial court to conduct a mental health diversion eligibility hearing under Penal Code section 1001.36 (statutory section citations that follow are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated), which he contends applies retroactively. We will conditionally reverse defendant’s judgment and remand to the trial court for an eligibility determination under section 1001.36.

1

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS Following a release from a mental health facility from a psychological hold, defendant shoplifted at a store and punched a store employee during a confrontation over the stolen goods. Defendant was charged with one count of robbery (§ 211) and alleging three prior serious or violent felony convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), three prior serious felonies convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and one prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court ordered the appointment of two psychiatrists under section 1368 to determine defendant’s competency to stand trial. Doctors Kent Caruso and Ray Carlson both noted in their reports that defendant reported being diagnosed with bipolar disorder while in prison and that he had been prescribed Risperdal, Seroquel, and Trazodone. Dr. Carlson concluded that defendant had a history strongly suggestive of antisocial personality disorder but that he showed no severe mental illness. Dr. Caruso reported that he did not find any evidence to support a judgement or jury finding of not guilty by reason of insanity. Dr. Caruso did review defendant’s records in which he found concerns over or diagnoses such as mood disorder “NOS,” anxiety disorder “NOS,” and a need to rule out bipolar disorder, depression and substance induced mood disorder. While in prison, defendant was diagnosed with bipolar disorder with depression. In a report dated December 7, 2016, Dr. Carlson noted that, while there was no evidence that defendant suffered from psychosis, he was diagnosed with dysthymic disorder in 2011. Defendant informed Dr. Carlson that he was previously diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Further, according to the report of the probation officer, hours before the crimes at issue, appellant was released from a Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150 hold from the Tehama County Mental Health Crisis Unit. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to the robbery count and admitted one prior strike (§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and two prior serious felonies (§ 667, subd. (a)(1));