People v. Nassiry CA1/2

Opinion

Filed 8/26/26 P. v. Nassiry CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A176166 v. ABDUL NASSIRY, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 01-25-04665) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Abdul Nassiry appeals from orders finding him not competent to stand trial and committing him to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH). His appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no issues and asking us to consider his appeal as prescribed in Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.) and People v. Blanchard (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 1020 (Blanchard). Appointed counsel informed Nassiry that he could file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Our discretionary review of the record discloses no arguable issues, and we therefore affirm. BACKGROUND On December 22, 2025, the Contra Costa District Attorney filed a complaint charging Nassiry with carjacking (Pen. Code,1 § 215, subd. (a)) and fleeing a pursuing peace officer while driving recklessly (Veh. Code, § 2800.2).

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1 On January 5, 2026, the date set for the preliminary hearing, defense counsel expressed a concern about Nassiry’s competency to stand trial under section 1368. After a brief in camera hearing with Nassiry and his counsel, the trial court suspended the criminal proceedings. On January 14, the court appointed Dr. Stephanie Williams to conduct a competency evaluation. On February 10, a brief hearing was held at which the court indicated it had received Dr. Williams’ report, dated February 2, in which Dr. Williams opined that Nassiry was not competent to stand trial. Based on that report, and without objection from either party, the trial court found that Nassiry was not competent to stand trial and referred him to the Contra Costa Conditional Release Program (CONREP) for a placement recommendation. On March 4, CONREP filed its placement evaluation, based on an evaluation of Nassiry conducted on February 23 by Chelsea R. Dispo, a forensic mental health clinician. CONREP recommended that Nassiry be referred for inpatient treatment and competency training with DSH in a “locked forensic setting.” On March 10, a hearing was held at which defense counsel objected on Nassiry’s behalf to placement at DSH and to any involuntary medication order. The trial court ordered Nassiry committed to DSH for a maximum two-year term, but declined to issue an involuntary medication order. The parties agreed that no custody credits were to be awarded. Nassiry filed a notice of appeal. DISCUSSION In Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th 529, our Supreme Court held that “[i]f appointed counsel in a conservatorship appeal finds no arguable issues, counsel . . . should (1) inform the court he or she has found no arguable issues 2 to be pursued on appeal; and (2) file a brief setting out the applicable facts and the law.” (Id. at p. 544, fn. omitted.) “The conservatee is to be provided a copy of the brief and informed of the right to file a supplemental brief.” (Id. at p. 544, fn. 6.) After following this procedure, the “brief will provide an adequate basis for the court to dismiss the appeal on its own motion.” (Id. at p. 544, fn. omitted.) The Ben C. procedure applies to appeals in competency proceedings. (See Blanchard, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1025–1026.) Here, Nassiry’s appointed appellate counsel followed Ben C. and Blanchard. She reviewed the record, found no arguable issues and so informed Nassiry; filed his brief in this court and served him with a copy; and informed him that he could file a supplemental brief. Nassiry’s counsel recognizes that, under Ben. C. and Blanchard, we are not required to independently review the record, but she asks us to exercise our discretion to do so. (See Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544, fn. 7 [“The court may, of course, find it appropriate to retain the appeal”]; see also People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 233, fn. 6.) We have conducted an independent review of the record. The finding that Nassiry was incompetent to stand trial was supported by substantial evidence, as set forth in the evaluations of two experts. Further, the commitment ordered by the trial court is authorized by law and supported by CONREP’s recommendation. Nassiry was ably represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. Accordingly, there are no arguable issues on appeal. DISPOSITION The orders finding Nassiry incompetent to stand trial and committing him to the Department of State Hospitals are affirmed.

3 RICHMAN, J.

We concur.

STEWART, P. J.

MILLER, J.

(A176166N)