P. v. William C.

Filed 4/6/07 P. v. William C. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Frank A. Brown, Judge. Affirmed.

In 1982 William C. (William) was committed to Patton State Hospital (Patton) after he was found not guilty by reason of insanity to criminal charges. After several attempts to transition him to an outpatient status and recommitment to Patton, the trial court, after an evidentiary hearing on August 22, 2006, extended William's commitment for a period of two years. (Pen. Code,  1026.5.)

FACTS

Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment below (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576), the following occurred. On November 10, 1981, William was undergoing delusions that his roommates were going to torture him and send him to a mental hospital where he would be starved. He believed the CIA or Secret Service was also involved. He cut his wrists in an attempt to commit suicide, fled, entered a residence and took a screwdriver, entered a second residence where he took a hand gun from the resident, attempted to shoot himself, and then commandeered an auto and drove away. While fleeing he was involved in a collision, killing another person. He has been suffering from schizophrenia for an extended period.

In 1982 William was admitted to Patton after being found not guilty by reason of insanity on charges of vehicular manslaughter (fromer Pen. Code,  192, subd. 3(a)), assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,  245, subd. (a)(1)) and hit and run causing death (Veh. Code,  20001). In April 1984 he was placed on outpatient status that was revoked in March 1986 after the transition was unsuccessful. He was suffering psychotic decompensation, refusing to take medication, making unauthorized phone calls, his physical hygiene was deteriorating, and he was increasingly irritable. In November 1993 he was again placed on outpatient status where he remained for six years. In 1999 a request for recommitment was made due to psychiatric decompensation. Outpatient status was not formally revoked but he was transferred to the conditional release program in Los Angeles (CONREP) where he remained on outpatient status. In June 2002 William was AWOL from CONREP and a warrant for his arrest was issued. Between 2002 and 2004 William made a number of threatening phone calls to CONREP employees. In November 2004 William was arrested, his outpatient status revoked and he was returned to Patton on January 20, 2005.

William's attending physician at Patton during 2005 and 2006 testified that William suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, does not recognize that he needs medication, and believes his life is in danger. William believes that he needs to get out of Patton to meet his family in Heaven, does not fully participate in therapy and is hostile and argumentative when he does. The doctor testified that William does not recognize he has a mental problem and continues to be a threat of danger to others. William's social worker at Patton testified that William suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, is not able to talk about the past, and becomes upset and agitated when doing so. He does not believe he has a mental illness or that he could be a danger to others if released. Dr. G. Preston Sims evaluated William. He testified that he found William schizophrenic. William's lack of insight, negative attitude, active symptoms of a major mental illness, and unresponsiveness to treatment make him a substantial risk for future violence. Dr. Jason Kornberg also evaluated William. Kornberg corroborated Dr. Sims.

William testified that he has some symptoms of schizophrenia when he lacks sleep. He had no problem taking medication and testified he is nonviolent.

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 a possible but not arguable issue whether sufficient evidence supports the order recommitting William to Patton.

We granted William permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has responded. William contends that because of his spirituality and lifestyle, he will not be a danger if released. The trial court concluded to the contrary after hearing the testimony of two psychiatrists, a clinical social worker, and a psychologist. We affirm a judgment supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Johnson, supra, 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 would support the conclusion of a reasonable trier of fact, 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.) In determining whether the trier of fact's conclusion is supported by substantial evidence, we must not usurp the trier of fact's assessment of credibility. (See People v. Thornton (1974) 11 Cal.3d 738, 754, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 685.)

Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that William poses a substantial danger to society if released at this time from the mental hospital.

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 William on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NARES, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

HALLER, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.

Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.