People v. Dunlap CA2/3

── People v. Dunlap CA2/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 08, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/8/26 P. v. Dunlap CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE THE PEOPLE, B344075 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA099666) v. ANTHONY TERRELL DUNLAP, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daniel B. Feldstern, Judge. Affirmed. Owen P. Martikan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Harris and Melanie Dorian, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.  ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗ A jury found Anthony Terrell Dunlap guilty of five counts of second degree robbery based on two separate incidents at Macy’s stores. The trial court denied Dunlap’s pretrial motion for mental health diversion. The court found Dunlap ineligible for diversion after concluding the prosecution rebutted the statutory presumption that Dunlap’s qualifying mental disorders were a significant factor in his commission of the offenses. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (b)(2).)1 On appeal, Dunlap contends the evidence was insufficient to support this determination. He also asserts the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of grand theft as to three of the five counts. We conclude that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Dunlap is ineligible for diversion under section 1001.36, subdivision (b)(2). We also conclude the trial court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of theft. We therefore affirm the order and judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case concerns two separate incidents during which Dunlap stole fragrances from Macy’s stores and assaulted and threatened store loss prevention officers. The first took place on January 12, 2023, in Santa Clarita, and the second on March 14, 2023, in Northridge. The cases were consolidated, and the People 1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 charged Dunlap with five counts of second degree robbery in violation of section 211.2 The jury found Dunlap guilty of all five counts. The trial court sentenced Dunlap to a total prison term of six years. The court suspended execution of the sentence and placed Dunlap on five years of formal probation. At Dunlap’s request, the court ordered as a condition of probation that he complete a two-year residential drug and alcohol treatment program. Dunlap timely appealed. DISCUSSION I. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Mental Health Diversion A. Background In May 2024, Dunlap, through counsel, filed a motion for mental health diversion in which he stated he consented to diversion and agreed to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion.3 He attached a conditional acceptance to a residential treatment program for drugs and alcohol. Dunlap submitted a psychological assessment in support of the motion. In the assessment, a psychologist diagnosed him with opioid use disorder, stimulant use disord