P. v. Jones

Filed 10/26/06 P. v. Jones CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura P. Hammes, Judge. Affirmed.

In 1985, Gary Grant Jones was found not guilty by reason of insanity to a charge of assault with intent to rape. (Pen. Code, § 220.)^[1] He was committed to Patton State Hospital (Patton) for six years. The commitment was extended in 1990, 1992, 1994, and 1996. In 1998, he was placed in a conditional release program known as CONREP. He relapsed into alcohol and marijuana use. In January 2004, his conditional release was revoked and he was readmitted to Patton State Hospital (Patton). In November 2005, the People petitioned to extend Jones's commitment to Patton for two years. (§ 1026.5.) In February 2006, Jones petitioned for release from Patton on the ground he would not be a danger to others if released. (§ 1026.2, subd. (a).) Both counsel waived jury. After hearing witnesses, the court granted the People's petition and denied Jones's petition.

FACTS

In 1984, Jones grabbed a nurse in a chokehold in the county mental health facility and tried to rape her. After commitment to Patton until 1998, he was placed in a conditional release program. He was returned to Patton in 2003. During 2004 and 2005 at Patton, restraints were applied to Jones when he engaged in threatening behavior and took a fighting stance and on another occasion when he swung at a staff member. He also hit a locker and used profanity when approached by a staff member, kicked a wall and broke his ankle, and obtained a weapon and admitted having plans to kill another patient.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether section 1026.2 was substantially complied with; and (2) whether substantial evidence would support the court ordering Jones into a less restrictive placement than Patton.

We granted Jones permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has responded. Jones contends he has already served his sentence. When a defendant is charged with a crime and found not guilty by reason of insanity, he may be committed to a mental hospital "for a period of time which does not exceed the maximum state prison term to which he could have been sentenced for the underlying offense." (People v. Wilder (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 90, 98.) However, the People may petition to extend the commitment for a two-year period "if the patient presents a substantial risk of physical harm to others because of a mental disease, defect, or disorder." (Ibid.) Because the purpose of extending the commitment to a state hospital is for treatment not punishment, the procedure to extend the commitment is civil not criminal. (Id. at p. 99; see People v. Superior Court (Williams) (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 477, 485.) The recommitment process does not deprive the patient of due process of law or deny him equal protection of law. (People v. Wilder, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at pp. 100, 104-105.) The fact that Jones has served the maximum term of commitment possible on the conviction of assault with intent to rape does not prevent extension of the commitment to a mental hospital while his mental problem making him a danger to others continues.

A person committed to a state hospital after a not guilty by reason of insanity finding should be released if by a preponderance of evidence the person proves sanity has been restored and he is no longer a danger to society due to mental disease, defect or disorder. (§ 1026.2, subds. (a), (e), (k).) Here, after hearing evidence the trial court found Jones was still suffering from a mental disorder making him a danger to others. We affirm a judgment supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576.) Substantial evidence is evidence of legal significance, reasonable in nature, credible and of solid value. (People v. Samuel (1981) 29 Cal.3d 489, 505.) The court must review the entire record most favorably to the judgment below and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the fact finder could reasonably deduce from the evidence. If the evidence permits a reasonable trier of fact to conclude the alleged mental disorder was present, the opinion of a reviewing court that the circumstances may also be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant reversal. (See Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 318-319.)

Here, the trial court heard the testimony of four witnesses. Psychologist Katherine DiFrancesca, Psychiatrist Greta Marie Herbes, the community program director for CONREP Jayne Shale, and Jones. DiFrancesca, Herbes and Shale all testified that Jones continued to have a mental disease or disorder and was a danger to others. This is substantial evidence supporting denial of Jones's petition for release.

A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Jones on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

McDONALD, J.

O'ROURKE, J.

Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line attorney.

^[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.