People v. Mabrok CA4/3

Filed 3/30/22 P. v. Mabrok CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G059642

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11HF3038)

AHMAD KHALIAH MABROK, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary S. Paer, Judge. Affirmed. Sandra Gillies, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski and Meredith S. White, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Ahmad Khaliah Mabrok appeals a postjudgment order denying his motion for mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36. He contends reversal is required because he was not present at the motion hearing. However, the record shows appellant waived his right to attend the hearing through counsel, and, even if that were not the case, any error in conducting the hearing in his absence was harmless. We therefore affirm the trial court’s ruling. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The underlying facts are set forth in our prior opinion in People v. Mabrok 1 (Oct. 10, 2019, G056251) [nonpub. opn.] (Mabrok I). In sum, the record shows appellant commandeered a limousine by force in Irvine and led police on a dangerous high-speed chase to his brother’s house in Whittier, where he crashed into a fence and was tracked down by a police dog. At trial, appellant presented evidence he suffers from bipolar disorder and was having delusional thoughts on the day in question. Nonetheless, the jury rejected his mental impairment defense and convicted him of carjacking, evading arrest while driving recklessly, and unlawfully taking a vehicle. Because he was a repeat offender, the trial court sentenced him to six years and eight months in prison. While appellant’s appeal was pending, the Legislature enacted Penal Code section 1001.36, which authorizes diversion for defendants with mental health disorders. Under that section, a trial court may grant diversion if: “(1) the defendant suffers from a qualifying mental disorder; (2) the disorder played a significant role in the commission of the charged offense; (3) the defendant’s symptoms will respond to mental health treatment; (4) the defendant consents to diversion . . .; (5) the defendant agrees to comply with treatment; and (6) the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to