People v. Minch CA5

Filed 6/23/22 P. v. Minch 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F082615 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF165836A) v.

ROBERT MINCH, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Tiffany Organ- Bowles, Judge.

Robert L. Hernandez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Henry J. Valle, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

*Before Levy, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

In a prior opinion (People v. Minch (June 26, 2020, F076882) [nonpub. opn.] (F076882)), this court conditionally reversed a judgment of conviction against Robert Minch (defendant) based on his eligibility to seek retroactive relief under Penal Code section 1001.36 (all further statutory references are to the Penal Code). Section 1001.36 authorizes discretionary “pretrial diversion” in certain cases involving mentally disordered offenders. Defendant now challenges the trial court’s reinstatement of the judgment. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On October 5, 2016, defendant entered a store and moved toward one of the cash registers. Based on defendant’s gait and odd “mumbling,” it appeared to the cashier that he was drunk. Defendant reached over the counter and began pressing buttons on the cash register. After failing to open the till, defendant pulled out a knife and began “swinging it slowly.” Next, he picked up some merchandise and exited the store. A supervisory employee followed him outside and called 911 to report the incident. Sheriff’s deputies confronted defendant outside of the store. Defendant extended his arm and pointed the blade of his knife at them. He ignored repeated commands to drop the knife, resulting in a standoff lasting several minutes. Defendant paced back and forth, occasionally pausing to drink from a “liquor bottle,” and taunted the deputies with profane language and gestures. Defendant alternated between pointing his knife at the deputies and running its blade across his wrists and neck. When the deputies drew their firearms, defendant told them to kill him. One of the deputies eventually snuck up behind defendant and incapacitated him with a Taser. Based on his interactions with the store supervisor, defendant was charged with second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5; count 1). He was also charged with attempted robbery based on his interactions with the cashier (count 2). In count 3, defendant was charged with drawing or exhibiting a deadly weapon with the intent to resist or prevent