People v. Brooks CA5

── People v. Brooks CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/28/26 P. v. Brooks CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F089782 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCR043023) v. AKILAH ASHA BROOKS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Brian Enos, Judge. Linda J. Zachritz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Darren K. Indermill and Paul E. O’Connor Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- * Before Franson, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J. 1.  INTRODUCTION Appellant Akilah Asha Brooks was committed to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) after being found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) for possession of a weapon while in custody. The prosecution filed a petition to extend appellant’s commitment and appellant’s counsel waived jury trial on her behalf. After a bench trial, the court extended appellant’s commitment. On appeal, appellant contends she was not advised of her right to a jury trial and did not personally waive that right. Therefore, her commitment must be reversed. The People agree and concede appellant’s commitment should be reversed. Our review of the record confirms the trial court violated appellant’s right to a jury trial. We reverse the court’s order and remand the matter for further proceedings. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY1 In 2012, appellant was committed to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) after being found not guilty by reason of insanity pursuant to Penal Code section 10262 for possessing a weapon in custody (§ 4502, subd. (a)). A few years later, appellant was transferred to the care of Central California Conditional Release Program (CONREP), an outpatient program. However, following a period of medication noncompliance, psychiatric decompensation, substance relapse, and aggression, appellant’s outpatient status was revoked and she was readmitted to DSH. In June 2024, the prosecution filed a petition to extend appellant’s commitment under section 1026.5, subdivision (b). A court trial was held on May 5, 2025. Appellant testified on her own behalf and the prosecution presented their case by admitting two professional reports, a “[section]1026 Court Report” identified as exhibit A, filed on June 20, 2024, and a “Psychological Evaluation: Recommitment” by Michael D. 1 Facts from the underlying offense are not relevant to the issue raised on appeal and are therefore intentionally omitted. 2 Hereinafter, undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2. Zimmerman, Ph.D., identified as exhibit B, filed on March 10, 2025. The court extended appellant’s commitment to December 2026. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. RELEVANT BACKGROUND On