People v. Lewis

PUBLIC- REDACTED Filed 6/11/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A171414 v. RONALD DESHUNN LEWIS, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. Nos. 01-23-01997, 01- Defendant and Appellant. 24-01976) PUBLIC—REDACTED VERSION. Redacts material from sealed record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.45, 8.46(f)(1) & (2).) Defendant Ronald Deshunn Lewis was charged with two counts of assault, alleged to have violated his probation, and found mentally incompetent to stand trial. The trial court, relying on a report from a psychologist, later committed defendant to the California Department of State Hospitals (Department) and authorized it to involuntarily administer antipsychotic medication pursuant to Penal Code section 1370, subdivision (a)(2)(B) (section 1370(a)(2)(B)).1 Defendant appeals, arguing the trial court violated his rights to due process and equal protection when it issued the 1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1  PUBLIC- REDACTED involuntary medication order without first affording him an evidentiary hearing. We disagree, and therefore affirm. BACKGROUND2 Original Charges and Competency Proceedings On July 19, 2023, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed in case number 01-23-01997 an information alleging defendant committed assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) with an enhancement that he personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). On August 18, the trial court declared a doubt as to defendant’s mental competence and suspended the criminal proceedings. (§ 1368.) Several days later, the court appointed three psychologists, including [REDACTED], to evaluate defendant’s mental condition. (§ 1369.) On October 11, based on the evaluators’ reports, the court found defendant incompetent to stand trial. On November 15, the court committed defendant to the Department. Restoration of Defendant’s Competency, Plea, and Placement on Probation One month later, the Department certified that defendant had regained mental competence. On March 13, 2024, the court approved the certificate and reinstated criminal proceedings. On April 3, defendant pled no contest to the count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury in return for the dismissal of the great bodily injury enhancement. The court placed defendant on probation for a one-year term. 2 This case involves material from a sealed record. In accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 8.46(f)(1) and (2), we have concurrently filed public (redacted) and sealed (unredacted) versions of this opinion. We hereby order the unredacted version of this opinion sealed. 2  PUBLIC- REDACTED Petition to Revoke Probation and New Charges On May 13, the probation department filed a petition to revoke probation alleging defendant violated the terms of his probation by “committing assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury and child abuse with possible great bodily injury/death.” It was alleged that defendant followed a father and his juvenile son in a parking lot and attacked them at random. Defendant approached the father from behind and struck him in the side of the head with a rock. He then approached the juvenile victim and also struck him with the rock. When the juvenile victim was on the ground, defendant stood over him and then struck him in the head with the rock multiple times. The juvenile victim sustained a severe laceration to his head. On May 14, the district attorney filed a complaint in another case (no. 01-24-01976) charging defendant with assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) (count 1)) and assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) (count 2). The complaint also alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)) in the commission of both counts, and that he used a deadly weapon in the commission of count 2 (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). It was further alleged that defendant violated the terms of his probation in case no. 01-23-01997. Second Competency Proceedings On May 28, based upon defense