P. v. Hansen
Filed 11/8/13 P. v. Hansen CA6
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
SIXTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
ELLEN MARIA HANSEN,
Defendant and Appellant.
H039654
(Santa
Clara County
Super. Ct.
No. C1120888)
Defendant Ellen
Maria Hansen was charged with felony infliction of corporal injury on a spouse
or cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)).
11, 2013, the court, based upon the opinions of two psychologists,
determined that defendant was incompetent to stand trial (§ 1370, subd.
(a)(1)(B)), suspended criminal proceedings, and ordered defendant committed to
a locked psychiatric facility
for a term of no more than three years. Defendant
filed a timely appeal. We will affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Defendant and Bobby Duarte have lived
together in San José since 2008.
As of November 2011, they lived in a
home with Duarte’s two uncles. On the morning of November 29, 2011, Duarte
received a head laceration after defendant threw an unopened 28-ounce can at
him while they were in their bedroom.
including a footstool, that defendant threw at him. Defendant was giving Duarte
“[a] blank look like she was looking through [him].†He described her behavior as “erratic.†Duarte
left the bedroom, and had his uncle, Daniel, call an ambulance to attend to his
injury. He was taken to Valley
Medical Center,
where he received eight “staples†to close the laceration.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Defendant was charged by information
with one felony, i.e., infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant
(§ 273.5, subd. (a)).
On October 18, 2012, the court expressed a doubt as to
defendant’s competence to stand trial and suspended
1368. The court appointed two
psychologists, who examined defendant and submitted reports.
On January 14, 2013, Henry Hoey, Ph.D., a clinical
psychologist, interviewed defendant, conducted a mental status examination, and
administered several psychological tests.
Dr. Hoey reported that defendant had been diagnosed in the past by two
professionals as “suffer[ing] from a Bipolar disorder, which involves seriously
impaired cognitions, including strange or paranoid perceptions of others.†In January 2010, defendant was granted a
disability retirement from the
States Postal Service due to her psychological condition and her refusal to
take psychotropic medications to address these issues. Defendant reported to Dr. Hoey that in
February 2008, she had been severely beaten with a baseball bat by her neighbor
and had suffered scalp lacerations and a fractured jaw. She was described by others witnessing the
incident as having been severely traumatized.
She indicated that she often dreamt about the attack, and lived in “fear
of being beaten up again and that she somehow draws people to attack her.†In addition, she “describe[d] herself as
having hallucinations when she becomes aroused from her sleep.â€
Dr. Hoey in his report recited the
nature of the subject incident of November
29, 2011, based upon his review of the police report. The police indicated that they perceived defendant
as having exhibited “bizarre behavior†that continued while she was transported
to jail. The police also reported that
she had “ ‘rapid and nervous speech[,]’ agitation[,] and
[voiced] ‘nonsensical/random sentences,’ †which behavior was also observed by
Dr. Hoey during the interview. Defendant
was unable to respond to questions about the incident; she became upset and
“her thinking deteriorate[d].â€
Psychological testing conducted by
Dr. Hoey indicated that defendant’s “cognitive functioning [was] significantly
impaired.†Dr. Hoey opined that
defendant was “suffering from a Bipolar-I disorder, with rapidly cycling
moderate to severe proportions with psychotic features, 296.04 DSMIV-TR . . .
her Bipolar disorder has psychotic features due to her paranoid thinking and
delusions.†He concluded that she “is
not sufficiently competent to stand trial at this time. Moreover, this lack of competence is a result
of her Bipolar disorder. Although she
generally understands the criminal proceedings that she is facing[,]
she is clearly unable to assist her attorney in the conduct of her defense in a
reasonable and rational manner.â€
(Original emphasis omitted.)
On October 29, 2012, D. Ashley Cohen, Ph.D., a clinical
psychologist, conducted an interview of defendant to determine her mental
status and trial competency. Dr. Cohen
indicated that defendant’s “speech was rapid, and highly pressured much of the
time. She evidence[d] mild dysarthria,
of the type commonly seen in persons who have sustained a
intermittently coherent and logical. She
jumped between topics to such an extent that she frequently became confused as
to the point she was attempting to make.â€
Defendant reported that she had been having psychological problems
dating back to her childhood. She also
reported that she had been “diagnosed in the past with Bipolar Disorder, Major
Depressive Disorder, PTSD, and Agoraphobia.â€
Dr. Cohen opined that defendant
exhibited “strong indications of currently experiencing a serious psychiatric
disorder, characterized by poorly controlled mood, delusional thinking, and
behavioral abnormalities. She is also
showing negative effects from a recent past serious head injury, and those are
physical, cognitive, and psychiatric.â€
Dr. Cohen concluded that defendant was “incapable of assisting counsel
in pursuing a defense in a rational manner†and was thus not competent to stand
trial.
On March 13, 2013, a court trial was conducted on the
question of defendant’s competence to stand trial.
of the reports of the two psychologists.
Based upon the reports of Dr. Cohen and Dr. Hoey, the court found
defendant not competent to stand trial.
The record reflected that defendant personally objected to this
finding.
On May 8, 2013, the court issued an
order committing defendant to the State Department of Mental Health for
placement in a locked psychiatric facility under section 1370, subdivision
(a)(2), with a maximum term of three years.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the commitment order,
which is appealable under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision
(a)(1). (People v. Fields (1965)
62 Cal.2d 538, 542.)
DISCUSSION
We
appointed counsel to represent
defendant in this court. Appointed
counsel filed an opening brief which stated the case and the facts but raised
no specific issues. We notified
defendant of her right to submit written argument on her own behalf within 30
days. Defendant filed a one-paragraph
letter reflecting her argument in the matter.
Her position is that the psychologists “submit[ted] falsified reports to
the court containing easily proven outright lies . . . This should be grounds
enough to doubt the veracity of any further statements [in] their reports. So, I humbly request an overturning of the
ruling on this matter.†Defendant
further stated in her letter that she had “never been incompetent in anything,
including assisting my Public Defenders or my Appellate attorney with my
defense.†Her letter raises no other
challenges to the commitment order.
We have
reviewed the entire record pursuant to People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Based
upon that review, we have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order of
commitment is affirmed.
Márquez, J.
WE CONCUR:
Rushing, P.J.
Premo, J.
stated.
preliminary hearing and from the reports of the psychologists submitted to the
court below.
