People v. Brooks CA5

Filed 6/14/22 P. v. Brooks CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F079503 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Madera Super. Ct. v. No. MCR043023)

AKILAH ASHA BROOKS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Ernest J. LiCalsi, Judge. Linda J. Zachritz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Smith, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and De Santos, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Akilah Asha Brooks was charged with a felony offense and found not guilty by reason of insanity in 2012. She was subsequently released on outpatient status. In this matter, she filed a petition for restoration of sanity pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1026.2. After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the petition. On appeal, her appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to the opinion of the California Supreme Court in Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On or about October 27, 2011, appellant was an inmate at Valley State Prison for Women and a participant in mental health services.2 A correctional officer saw an object fall from appellant’s waistline and seized the item. The object was a lock placed inside of a sock, something commonly used as a weapon inside the prison.3 Insanity Finding and Commitment On October 10, 2012, a first amended information was filed in the Superior Court of Madera County charging appellant with count 1, unlawful possession of a weapon, “a lock in a sock,” while confined in a penal institution (§ 4502, subd. (a)) with one prior strike conviction and one prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellant

1 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 The facts for appellant’s underlying conviction are from the preliminary hearing. 3 As will be explained below, appellant filed a petition in 2019 for restoration of competency, CONREP prepared a report for the hearing, and the court considered that report in denying the petition. According to CONREP’s report, appellant “was initially arrested in 1996 at the age of 20 for Possession of a Controlled Substance. Since then, she has been convicted numerous times for theft, prostitution, possession of illegal substances, probation violations, battery, obstructing a peace officer, battery resulting in serious bodily injury, and multiple failures to appear violations. [Appellant] was originally sentenced to [Valley State Prison for Women] after being convicted of stealing a car. Although she did not engage in any violence during the commission of the car theft, she did get into an accident in the car, resulting in a violence enhancement during sentencing.” 2.