legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Czirban CA1/4

abundy's Membership Status

Registration Date: Jun 01, 2017
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 06/01/17 - 11:31:27

Biographical Information

Contact Information

Submission History

Most recent listings:
In re K.P. CA6
P. v. Price CA6
P. v. Alvarez CA6
P. v. Shaw CA6
Marriage of Lejerskar CA4/3

Find all listings submitted by abundy
P. v. Czirban CA1/4
By
01/03/18

Filed 11/1/17 P. v. Czirban CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
KEEGAN LEE CZIRBAN,
Defendant and Appellant.

A149120

(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. 05-151662-4)

Appellant Keegan Lee Czirban appeals from an order finding him incompetent to stand trial and committing him to Napa State Hospital pursuant to Penal Code section 1370. Appellant’s counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised, and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel submitted a declaration stating that he notified appellant that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Counsel also advised appellant of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.
BACKGROUND
A. Underlying Robbery Charge
On January 24, 2014, Officer Allan Pike of the Clayton Police Department was dispatched to a convenience store in Clayton in response to a reported theft from the store. Officer Pike obtained a flash drive containing surveillance video of the incident from the store’s owner. In November 2014, after having multiple encounters with appellant, Officer Pike reviewed the surveillance video again and recognized appellant in the video. Officer Pike showed appellant a still photo taken from the surveillance video, and appellant stated, “ ‘that’s me.’ ” Appellant told Officer Pike that he entered the convenience store with the intent to steal a bottle of wine and that he concealed a bottle of wine in his jacket as he attempted to buy a magazine. When the clerk questioned him about the item hidden in his jacket, appellant grabbed the magazine and started to run out of the store. As he fled he hit the clerk and dropped the magazine and the bottle of wine, which shattered on the floor. Appellant backed out of the store, but came back and grabbed the magazine before leaving again.
On March 12, 2015, a felony complaint was filed charging appellant with one count of second degree robbery (§§ 211/212.5, subd. (c).)
B. Competency Proceedings
On March 23, 2015, the trial court found appellant incompetent to stand trial (§ 1369) after the parties submitted the competency issue on a doctor report from February 5, 2015. On April 20, 2015, after the parties submitted on the placement report prepared by the conditional release program (CONREP), the court ordered appellant committed to the Department of State Hospitals pending restoration of competency (§ 1370). On May 18, 2015, after denying appellant’s motion to discharge his appointed defense counsel (see People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118), the court issued another commitment order.
On September 17, 2015, upon receipt of a certification of appellant’s restoration to competency from the medical director of the state hospital (§ 1372), the parties submitted on the hospital’s report, the court found that appellant had been restored to competency, and the court reinstated criminal proceedings against him. At the conclusion of a preliminary hearing held on September 24, 2015, the magistrate held appellant to answer on the second degree robbery count charged in the complaint. The Contra Costa County District Attorney then filed an information charging appellant with one felony count of second degree robbery (§§ 211/212.5, subd. (c)) on October 9, 2015.
On February 26, 2016, appellant submitted to the court a request to represent himself. (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806.) At the Faretta hearing on March 9, 2016, trial counsel declared a doubt as to appellant’s competency to stand trial (§ 1368, subd. (b)), and the court appointed two experts to evaluate him (§ 1369, subd. (a)). On June 20, 2016, after appellant personally addressed the court, the parties submitted the question of appellant’s competency on reports prepared by the two evaluators, and the trial court found appellant incompetent to stand trial. The court then referred the matter to CONREP for a placement report.
At the July 14, 2016 placement hearing, the parties submitted on CONREP’s report, and the court ordered appellant committed to the Department of State Hospitals pending restoration of competency for a period not to exceed three years, less credits. In so ruling, the trial court offered the following reasons for finding appellant incompetent to stand trial: “Mr. Czirban, the attorneys are submitting the matters on the reports from Dr. Griffith and Dr. House. I read and considered those reports. That’s what I was doing in chambers. [¶] They have both presented a very thorough written report after having spent at least an hour with you in each instance. Dr. House concludes that you suffer from a delusional belief system that waxes and wanes, it comes and goes. And apparently during the interview with Dr. House, was waning. It wasn’t presenting itself, and he felt you were competent. [¶] However, several days later when Dr. Griffith interviewed you, it’s apparent that you were suffering from a severe delusional episode such that he was really unable to decipher much of what you were telling him. And his conclusion is that you are still incompetent to participate. [¶] And based on the standards of proof, which is proof by a preponderance of the evidence, I find it more likely than not that Dr. Griffith’s conclusion is accurate for all the reasons stated in his report. So, at this time . . . I find that presently you’re still mentally incompetent, and that the suspension of proceedings should remain in effect. [¶] It’s not to say you’re a bad person. You present yourself very well. You express yourself very well, but based on the professional evaluation, that’s my finding.”
C. Appellant’s Release and Dismissal of the Charges
On February 9, 2017, the trial court found that appellant was not likely to be restored to competency in the foreseeable future (see § 1370, subds. (b)(1)(A) & (c)(2)) and ordered him released into the custody of his mother. On February 27, 2017, the trial court granted appellant’s motion to dismiss the case against him. (§ 1370, subd. (d).)
DISCUSSION
Section 1370 authorizes the court to commit an incompetent defendant to a state mental hospital for a period of no more than three years. (§ 1370, subds. (a), (c)(1).) “Once committed [to a state mental hospital], reports charting the defendant’s progress must be filed with the court at statutorily provided intervals. If the medical staff determines that there is no substantial likelihood that the defendant will regain mental competence in the foreseeable future, the defendant must be returned to the court for further proceedings. ([] § 1370, subds. (b) & (c).)” (People v. Karriker (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 763, 780-781, fns. omitted.) Any further commitment is permitted only if the requirements for a conservatorship under one of the provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.) are met. (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 434, 443; People v. Karriker, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 776.) Alternatively, the court can dismiss the charges and order the defendant released. (In re Davis (1973) 8 Cal.3d 798, 806 [“if petitioners are making no reasonable progress toward that goal [restoring competency], they must be released or held subject to alternative commitment procedures”].)
After independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist regarding appellant’s incompetency finding or in the subsequent dismissal of the charges against him and his release into his mother’s custody.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.  




_________________________
REARDON, ACTING P. J.


We concur:


_________________________
RIVERA, J.


_________________________
STREETER, J.
























A149120 People v. Czirban





Description Appellant Keegan Lee Czirban appeals from an order finding him incompetent to stand trial and committing him to Napa State Hospital pursuant to Penal Code section 1370. Appellant’s counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised, and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel submitted a declaration stating that he notified appellant that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Counsel also advised appellant of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.
Views 12 views. Averaging 0 views per day.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2018 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2018 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale