Full Opinion

Filed 11/12/26 P. v. Lieberman CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B353672 (Super. Ct. No. 2023024630) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County) v. AARON BENJAMIN LIEBERMAN, Defendant and Appellant. Aaron Benjamin Lieberman was charged with false imprisonment of an elder (Pen. Code,1 § 368, subd. (f); counts 1 & 2) and elder abuse (§ 368, subd. (c); count 3). As to counts 1 and 2, the complaint alleged appellant was out on bail at the time of the commission of the offenses within the meaning of section 12022.1, subdivision (b). The complaint further alleged two factors in aggravation (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3), (b)(2)). 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. In September 2023, defense counsel declared a doubt as to appellant’s mental competency. The trial court found appellant incompetent to stand trial. (§ 1368.) In February 2024, the trial court found appellant competent to stand trial. In May 2024, the trial court found appellant was eligible and suitable for mental health diversion pursuant to section 1001.36. The trial court ordered appellant placed on mental health diversion for 24 months. In January 2025, trial counsel declared a doubt as to appellant’s mental competency. The trial court again found appellant incompetent to stand trial. (§ 1368.) In July 2025, appellant was declared competent to stand trial. In September 2025, appellant asked to withdraw from mental health diversion, and the trial court granted the request. Appellant pleaded guilty to a felony violation of section 368, subdivision (f) (count 2) and a misdemeanor violation of section 368, subdivision (c) (count 3). Appellant also admitted the out- on-bail enhancement and the two factors in aggravation. In October 2025, the trial court ordered imposition of sentence suspended and placed appellant on formal probation for 36 months subject to various terms and condition, including that he serve 672 days in county jail with credit for 672 days of time served. As a condition of probation, appellant waived any credits in excess of 365 days. In April 2026, appellant was arraigned on a notice of new charges. After appellant admitted the allegations as they were stated in the notice of charges, the trial court revoked probation, then reinstated it with the same terms and conditions, and ordered appellant to serve 30 days in county jail. 2 We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that raises no arguable issues. On September 11, 2026, we notified appellant by mail that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. Appellant filed a supplemental brief raising no arguable issues.2 We affirm. Appellant has a history of mental health issues and lives with his elderly parents, aged 71 (father) and 67 (mother).3 During a “mental health emergency,” appellant grabbed his mother’s wrist and forced her to touch his head, which he believed had a “chip” in it. After forcing her to touch his head, appellant continued to hold his mother by the wrist and refused to let her go. He squeezed her wrist tightly, causing her pain. She pleaded for him to let her go, but he would not release her. Approximately 30 or 40 minutes later, appellant released his mother’s wrist. She left the residence and entered her vehicle because she was afraid to go back inside. 2 On October 5, 2026, October 9, 2026, and October 22, 2026, this court received from appellant multiple additional supplemental briefs with attached exhibits. Appellant’s first supplemental brief, filed September 28, 2026, is unintelligible. Appellant acknowledges as much and asks this court to “consider his second letter.” We will do so and grant permission to file the supplemental brief with attached exhibits, received October 5, 2026. Permission to file all other subsequently received supplemental briefs is denied. (California Rules of Court, rule 8.200(a)(4).) 3 These facts are summarized from the probation report, filed October 6, 2025. 3 Appellant’s father discovered his wife sleeping in the vehicle and convinced her to return to the residence. They went to their bedroom and locked the door. Appellant removed his clothes, stood outside his parents’ bedroom door, and screamed threats to kill them if they did not give him money to go to the Philippines. Appellant’s mother called the police and he was subsequently arrested. In his second supplemental brief, appellant appears to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his conviction. For example, he contends “a wrist was held for a few seconds, and that for years was enough to prosecute me with prejudice.” However, by pleading guilty, appellant waived any appellate claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. (See People v. Voit (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1365.) The record also reflects that appellant admitted a violation of probation, which resulted in additional sentencing consequences. On these facts, appellant’s contentions of error are without merit. We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) Disposition The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. YEGAN, J. We concur: CODY, P. J. BALTODANO, J. 4 Ethel R. Hernandez, Judge Superior Court County of Ventura ______________________________ Brad J. Poore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.