P. v. Meeks

Filed 6/4/19 P. v. Meeks CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
PATRICK D. MEEKS,
Defendant and
Appellant.
B289806
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA455087)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Leslie A. Swain, Judge. Conditionally
reversed and remanded.
Rudolph J. Alejo, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler,
Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior

-- 1 of 7 --

2
Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth C. Byrne, Supervising
Deputy Attorney General, Nicholas J. Webster, Deputy
Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________
The jury found defendant and appellant Patrick D.
Meeks guilty of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),1
with personal use of a deadly or dangerous weapon (§ 12022,
subd. (b)(1)). Meeks admitted two prior strikes under the
three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–
(d)) and two enhancements for prior serious felony
convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court granted
Meeks’s unopposed motion to strike the prior strikes and
sentenced him to a total term of 12 years in prison,
consisting of the low term of 2 years for the robbery, plus two
terms of 5 years each for the prior serious felony
enhancements.
Meeks argues that his conviction must be conditionally
reversed because he is entitled to an eligibility hearing
under recently enacted section 1001.36, which gives trial
courts discretion to grant pretrial diversion for mental
health treatment to qualified defendants, and that he is
entitled to remand for the trial court to determine whether
to exercise its discretion to strike the two 5-year prior felony
conviction enhancements under section 667, subdivision
(a)(1). The Attorney General agrees that the matter should
be remanded for the trial court to determine whether to
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise indicated.

-- 2 of 7 --

3
exercise its discretion to strike the prior felony conviction
enhancements, but argues that conditional reversal is
inappropriate because section 1001.36 does not apply
retroactively.
We conditionally reverse Meeks’s conviction and
remand for the trial court to determine whether to exercise
its discretion to (1) strike Meeks’s prior serious felony
convictions under section 667, subdivision (a)(1); and (2) to
grant pretrial mental health diversion pursuant to section
1001.36, including whether to conduct a hearing to
determine Meeks’s eligibility.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Prior to trial, defense counsel declared a doubt as to
Meeks’s competency. A psychiatrist reported that Meeks
was competent, despite suffering from paranoid
schizophrenia and substance-abuse disorders. Following a
hearing on January 29, 2018, Meeks’s competency was
deemed restored and proceedings continued.
At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that on
March 1, 2017, Meeks entered a Home Depot during
business hours wearing gloves, kneepads, and goggles, and
carrying a flashlight. Moises Alvarez, the store’s loss
prevention officer, recognized Meeks as the person who stole
a pair of gloves from the store the previous day. Alvarez
observed Meeks taking items. Alvarez confronted him and
said that he could leave if he left the merchandise on the

-- 3 of 7 --

4
floor. Meeks, who was holding a knife, declined the offer and
stated that he needed the things he was taking. When
Meeks headed for the exit, Alvarez initially followed him,
but was deterred when he noticed that Meeks was swinging
the flashlight and muttering to himself. The police arrived
shortly thereafter, arrested Meeks without incident, and
recovered $292.55 worth of merchandise from his person.
The defense called psychiatrist Dr. Jack Rothberg, who
had examined Meeks two to three days after his arrest. He
testified that Meeks suffered from unspecified psychosis,
either schizophrenia or bipolar disorder or depression with
psychosis, and reported auditory and visual hallucinations.
Dr. Rothberg also stated that Meeks specifically requested
medication for these symptoms while incarcerated.
In closing argument, defense counsel argued that
Meeks was suffering from hallucinations at the time of the
incident, and he should be convicted of the lesser offense of
petty theft rather than robbery because he was acting in
conformance with his mental illness, not using force or fear
to accomplish the theft.
DISCUSSION
Pretrial Diversion for Mental Health Disorders
Meeks contends that his conviction must be
conditionally reversed because he is entitled to a hearing
under recently enacted section 1001.36, which allows

-- 4 of 7 --

5
qualifying defendants to participate in pretrial diversion and
receive mental health treatment in lieu of prosecution.
(§ 1001.36, subd. (c).) Relying on People v. Frahs (2018) 27
Cal.App.5th 784 (Frahs), review granted Dec. 27, 2018,
S252220,2 Meeks argues that the Legislature intended for
the statute, which provides ameliorating benefits to
defendants, to apply retroactively in cases like his, in which
the judgment was not final at the time the statute was
enacted. The Attorney General counters that the language
of subdivision (c) of section 1001.36 demonstrates that the
Legislature intended the enactment to operate prospectively,
i.e., the enactment would not apply to cases such as this one
in which there has already been an adjudication.
Our Supreme Court has granted review to decide
whether section 1001.36 applies retroactively. (Frahs,
supra, 27 Cal.App.5th 784 [holding that section 1001.36
applies retroactively].) Because our Supreme Court will
soon have the final word, we will keep our discussion brief.
We agree with the outcome in Frahs, which held that
section 1001.36 applies retroactively to defendants whose
cases are not yet final. Meeks’s case is not yet final, and the
record affirmatively discloses that he meets at least one of
2 See California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(1)
[“[p]ending review and filing of the Supreme Court’s opinion,
unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court . . . , a
published opinion of a Court of Appeal in the matter has no
binding or precedential effect, and may be cited for
potentially persuasive value only”].

-- 5 of 7 --

6
section 1001.36’s threshold eligibility requirements—Meeks
“suffers from a mental disorder as identified in the most
recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders, . . .” (§ 1001.36, subd. (b)(1)(A)).
Moreover, the record indicates that Meeks may meet other
requirements under section 1001.36—the facts suggest
Meeks’s mental disorder may have been “a significant factor
in the commission of the charged offense,” (§ 1001.36, subd.
(b)(1)(B)), and that Meeks may be amenable to treatment for
his mental illness (§ 1001.36, subd. (b)(1)(E)). We therefore
remand to allow the trial court to determine whether Meeks
should benefit from diversion under section 1001.36. (Frahs,
supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 791.)
Prior Serious Felony Enhancement
Senate Bill No. 1393, signed into law on September 30,
2018, amends sections 667 and 1385 to provide the trial
court with discretion to strike five-year enhancements
pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)(1), in the interests of
justice. (Sen. Bill No. 1393 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) §§ 1, 2.)
The new law took effect on January 1, 2019. We agree with
the parties that the law applies to Meeks, whose appeal was
not final on the law’s effective date. Accordingly, we remand
the matter for the trial court to consider whether to exercise
its discretion to strike the section 667, subdivision (a)(1)
enhancements.

-- 6 of 7 --

7
DISPOSITION
The judgment is conditionally reversed and the matter
is remanded to the trial court with directions to, within 90
days from the remittitur: (1) consider whether to exercise its
discretion to strike the two section 667, subdivision (a)(1)
enhancements (in the event the conviction is reinstated); and
(2) consider whether to exercise its discretion to grant
pretrial diversion, including whether to conduct a diversion
eligibility hearing, under section 1001.36. If the court grants
Meeks pretrial mental health diversion, and Meeks
successfully completes a diversion program, the court shall
dismiss the charges in accordance with section 1001.36,
subdivision (e). If either of these conditions is not met, the
trial court shall reinstate the judgment.
MOOR, J.
WE CONCUR:
RUBIN, P. J.
KIM, J.

-- 7 of 7 --