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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

AKILAH ASHA BROOKS,

Defendant and Appellant.

F079503

(Madera Super. Ct. 

No. MCR043023)

OPINION

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.
2.

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 Code1section 

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.”
3.

pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, and the court appointed experts to 

examine her.

On November 9, 2012, appellant waived her right to a jury trial and submitted the 

matter on the experts’ reports. The parties stipulated that a “lock in a sock” was a 

weapon. After reviewing the evidence, the court found appellant was guilty of count 1,

the prior conviction allegations were true, and also found she was not guilty by reason of 

insanity. The court referred appellant to the Conditional Release Program (CONREP) for 

an evaluation and recommendation.

On December 6, 2012, the court committed appellant to Patton State Hospital.

Outpatient Transfer

On February 9, 2016, the court approved appellant’s transfer to outpatient 

treatment and supervision by CONREP. On March 9, 2016, appellant was released to 

community outpatient treatment.

On February 8, and July 30, 2018, the court reviewed CONREP’s reports and 

found appellant continued to have a severe mental illness that was not in remission; she 

was a danger to others if not under continued care; and ordered appellant to continue in 

the supervised released program.

APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR RESTORATION OF SANITY

On March 19, 2019, appellant filed a petition for restoration of sanity and 

unconditional release from CONREP pursuant to section 1026.2, because she had 

received the full benefit of treatment and was no longer a danger to the community. She 

requested an evidentiary hearing.

CONREP’s 2019 Report

On February 5, 2019, CONREP submitted a status report about appellant’s 

condition for an upcoming review hearing. This report was introduced into evidence and 

considered by the court at the hearing on her petition for restoration of competency.
4.

At the time of the report, appellant was 42 years old and fully oriented. She was 

diagnosed with bipolar disorder, in partial remission; cocaine use disorder, severe, in 

sustained remission; and cannabis use disorder, severe, in sustained remission; and was 

prescribed psychotropic medication.

Appellant received treatment from CONREP “at the Transitional Level of Care,” 

that was appropriate for patients who have progressed through other Community 

Outpatient Treatment levels and are being considered for progression to Aftercare Level.” 

Appellant received one individual therapy session and one group therapy session every 

month. She met with CONREP’s psychiatrist three times a year and submitted a drug test 

at least once a month.

Appellant lived on her own in an independent living apartment, she was 

responsible for fulfilling the responsibilities of daily living, and she received at least one 

home visit from CONREP per month.

“Unfortunately, [appellant] has maintained a negative attitude 

toward CONREP and CONREP staff, which has on several occasions 

overshadowed her progress. [Appellant] made racially insensitive 

comments toward African-American staff in the office and when addressed 

she attempted to make it [in] a joking manner but later stated, ‘Well maybe 

it’s true.’ This behavior demonstrates that she continues to struggle with 

her impulsivity and has not learned to think before making inappropriate 

statements. Additionally, [appellant] continues to blame CONREP for her 

placement into the program versus accepting accountability for her actions 

and criminal behavior/thinking. Due to her continuous blaming of 

CONREP, [appellant] demeanor and response toward staff is generally 

hostile and inappropriate. Her inability to distinguish between appropriate 

joking behavior, impulsive responses, and accountability is of concern as 

her risk of re-offending and/or being positioned in an unfavorable situation 

would likely increase if she were not being monitored by CONREP. 

Unfortunately, whenever [appellant] makes a poor decision or behaves in 

an unpleasant manner, she blames someone else for her behavior and/or 

minimizes her behavior, which displays her continued criminal thinking.

“... [Appellant] was attending Fresno City [College], however she made 

the decision to drop out of school without informing her treatment team. 

When she was questioned about her attendance[,] she gave dishonest 
5.

answers until the truth was revealed in reviewing her classwork via Canvas 

(online school resource). Her inability to be truthful regarding her struggles 

with basic life situations is of concern, as she attempted to hide her lack of 

school attendance, which demonstrates deceitful behavior. Fortunately, 

[appellant] did re-enroll in classes at Fresno Adult School and Fresno City 

College, in order to work toward her GED and potentially receiving a 

certificate in Drug and Alcohol Counseling in the future. Recently, 

[appellant] complained about her schedule and being too busy. However, 

when it was suggested that she re-evaluate her school [schedule] and maybe 

decrease her classes as it was her choice to create a full schedule, (again) 

she attempted to blame others and stated ‘that she did not have a’ choice.

[Appellant] often has distorted thoughts regarding what is expected of her 

and attempts to use others as a scapegoat for her decisions. Unfortunately, 

her distorted reality has caused her to engage in criminal activities in the 

past and if she is unable to re-evaluate her thinking and improve her 

thought process to a more reality based approach, it is likely that she will 

remain at risk for decompensation if she is not receiving treatment from 

CONREP.

“With regard to her substance abuse history and treatment, 

[appellant] continues to minimize her substance abuse history and need for 

treatment. Recently, she began taking drug and alcohol courses, in which 

she advocated that she should not be required to go to AA/NA meetings 

due to taking the courses. It was explained to [appellant] that going to 

school to provide treatment and receiving treatment were two different 

objectives and that it is unethical to attempt to provide treatment to 

yourself. Examples were provided to [appellant], such as a doctor treating 

himself or a therapist trying to provide therapy to his/herself. The 

importance of an addict maintaining treatment for an addiction was 

addressed, in which [appellant] continued to minimize her need for 

treatment and state her lack of ‘desire’ to use. Additionally, she does not 

believe she is in need of a sponsor and does not have regular 

communication with her sponsor as suggested for treatment. It is of grave 

concern, that [appellant] is unable to understand the importance of 

receiving ongoing treatment for [a] disease/addiction and her only relapse 

prevention plan is ‘I have no desire to use.’ [Appellant] has openly stated 

upon restoration of sanity that she would no longer attend AA/NA meetings 

for substance abuse treatment as she feels her classes are adequate. If she 

were to be restored to sanity, it is likely that she would no longer focus on 

her addiction and lose all supports and resources for her substance abuse, 

which could increase her chances to relapse.

“Throughout this past year, [appellant] has added and subtracted 

prosocial supports from her collateral contacts. Unfortunately, she has not 
6.

presented any sustainable peers/supports to CONREP. Her primary support 

system is her mother, who resides in the Sacramento area. Having no 

support system in her place of residency outside of CONREP is concerning, 

as she wishes to be restored to sanity. It is important for [appellant] to 

establish a consistent foundation of support in the community, in order to 

engage in prosocial interaction and communication on a regular basis, as 

well as, to assist her if she starts to experience any symptoms of her mental 

illness. She continues to minimize her mental illness and her need for 

support, which is bothersome to her treatment. If she is unable to 

acknowledge her need for treatment and support, it is likely that she would 

isolate and potentially experience an exacerbation of symptoms if she were 

not in CONREP. Therefore, her treatment will continue to focus. on 

developing prosocial communication skills, problem-solving skills, and 

crisis management skills, in order to continue to reduce her need for 

supervision from CONREP.” (Italics added.)

The report concluded that appellant had “a severe mental illness that is not in 

remission and presents risk factors that make her a danger to the health and safety of 

others if she did not remain under CONREP’s supervision. While she continued to make 

progress, her struggles “with impulsivity, irrational decision-making, distorted thoughts, 

lack of communication, lack of community supports, and minimization of substance 

abuse and mental illness continue to keep her at risk of decompensating and becoming a 

liability to the community,” and she had not created a relapse prevention plan to support 

her expressed commitment to remain clean and sober.

Dr. French’s Report

On May 24, 2019, Dr. Jonathan French, a clinical psychologist, filed a report with 

the court for consideration at the hearing on appellant’s petition for restoration of 

competency. He generally agreed with CONREP’s conclusions and found appellant did 

not have an adequate grasp of how to manage her mental health and risk for 

decompensation; she was fragile and did not maintain adequate self-control; and she still 

needed CONREP’s support.

Evidentiary Hearing

On May 24, 2019, appellant waived a jury trial. On May 29, 2019, the court 

conducted an evidentiary hearing on appellant’s petition. The district attorney introduced 
7.

into evidence CONREP’s February 5, 2019, report, and Dr. French’s psychological 

evaluation of May 24, 2019, without objection.

Appellant was the only hearing witness. She testified that she was doing very 

well, she had lived alone in her own apartment in Fresno for the past two years, she 

initially volunteered at a thrift shop, and now she attended school. Her goal was to earn a 

drug and alcohol counseling certificate and become a counselor to help other people.

Appellant regularly took her prescribed medication and believed they helped her. 

She did not take some medications during a limited period in the prior few months, when 

her doctor suggesting eliminating one of them. Appellant testified she adjusted her 

medications on her own to try to determine which one she would feel comfortable doing 

without. She eventually returned to her regular regimen, which she felt worked well. 

Appellant testified that her only relapse occurred for one day when she “smoke[d] a little 

weed.”

Appellant knew CONREP wanted her to have a support system of people in 

Fresno, but she considered this unrealistic because she was originally from Sacramento

and most of her family lived in Sacramento. She considered her family as her collateral 

support system, and she wanted to visit her mother and family there.

Appellant testified she got along with her landlord and college professors. She did 

not understand why CONREP had “issues” with her. She was nice to CONREP’s staff, 

although appellant and her clinician “bump heads sometimes.” She did not feel that she 

was a threat to herself or anyone, and she felt like she had “done more than enough, and 

proved beyond and above” to be released.

The Court’s Ruling

The court stated it had considered appellant’s testimony and the documentary 

exhibits, complimented appellant for her progress, but was concerned about certain 

issues.
8.

“I understand that [appellant] has been sober for eight years, but I 

think she minimizes the use of the marijuana and what that can do to her 

sobriety. She said on the witness stand it was just marijuana. [Appellant] 

is in a very fragile state when it comes to the use of any type of substances 

that are not prescribed, given her past addiction, and I truly feel that 

[appellant] needs to learn more about her mental illness. It is a mental 

illness and when she was talking to Dr. French, she said, ‘I’m not using any 

street drugs now. So I think I will probably do okay without the 

psychotropic medication,’ not that she’s thinking of stopping them, but the 

fact of the matter is that, that concerns me because I still think [appellant] 

feels there’s a link between the two ....

“I think it’s clear that ... her past use of drugs has caused the mental 

disorder, but that mental illness is now, in and of itself, an issue, and it’s 

going to be there regardless of whether or not she uses controlled 

substances or ‘street drugs,’ as she called them. I think she needs to 

recognize and understand the symptoms of that mental illness, and I think 

Dr. French points out a lot of the clashes with CONREP and her 

minimizing can be if she just can look into her mental illness and 

understand that maybe that’s what is more of a problem than just CONREP 

being unwielding in their authority.”

The court concluded that while appellant made progress, it agreed with the 

experts’ reports that she needed to come up with a relapse prevention system, work on 

not minimizing the things that go wrong in her life and blame others, start accepting that 

things go wrong, and build a support system within the community beyond her family, 

and these things could be done with CONREP’s assistance. The court declined to find by 

a preponderance of the evidence that she was restored to sanity and was not a danger to 

the community given her past offenses and mental illness.

On June 14, 2019, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the court’s denial of her 

petition.

DISCUSSION

As noted above, appellant’s counsel has filed a Ben C. brief with this court. The 

brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that appellant was 

advised she could file her own brief with this court. By letter on July 16, 2020, we 

invited appellant to submit additional briefing. She failed to do so.
9.

After independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable 

factual or legal issues exist.4

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

4 “A defendant who has been acquitted by reason of insanity and committed to a 

state hospital can obtain release upon a finding that his or her sanity has been restored” 

under section 1026.2’s two-step process. (People v. Endsley (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 

110, 116; People v. Soiu (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1191, 1196.)

“The first step in the release process requires the defendant, who has filed a 

release application, to demonstrate at a hearing that he or she will not ‘be a danger to the 

health and safety of others, due to mental defect, disease, or disorder, while under 

supervision and treatment in the community.’ [Citation.] If the court finds such at the 

hearing, the defendant is then placed in ‘an appropriate forensic conditional release 

program for one year.’ [Citation.] This is commonly called the outpatient placement 

hearing. Thus concludes the first step of the release process.” (People v. Soiu, supra, 

106 Cal.App.4th at p. 1196.)

“The second step in the section 1026.2 release process is referred to as the 

restoration of sanity trial, and can only be reached if the applicant has already met the 

threshold test for placement in ‘an appropriate forensic conditional release program.’ 

[Citations.] ‘Outpatient status is a prerequisite to a finding that sanity has been restored. 

[Citation.]’ [Citation.] At the end of one year in an outpatient program, the court ‘shall 

have a trial to determine if sanity has been restored, which means the applicant is no 

longer a danger to the health and safety of others, due to mental defect, disease, or 

disorder.’ [Citations.] The applicant must show he or she would not be dangerous if 

unconditionally released. [Citation.] The applicant again has the same due process 

rights, including a jury trial, and the burden of proving he or she would not be dangerous 

by a preponderance of the evidence.” (People v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422, 

1433–1434.)

“We review the trial court’s determination for an abuse of discretion, drawing 

every reasonable inference in favor of the trial court’s determination.” (People v. 

Dobson, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 1434.) Under this standard, it is not sufficient to 

show facts affording an opportunity for a difference of opinion; rather, abuse of 

discretion is shown only if the court exceeds the bounds of reason, all circumstances 

being considered. (People v. Cross (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 63, 73.) Based on the record 

set forth herein, and the trial court’s lengthy findings at the evidentiary hearing, the court 

did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s petition.