P. v. Wilson

Filed 7/26/06 P. v. Wilson CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

I.

Introduction

Bradley Terrance Wilson (Wilson) challenges the order of the trial court extending his commitment under California's Mentally Disordered Offenders statute (MDO); Pen. Code, §§ 2970 et seq.)^[1] On appeal and in his petition for writ of habeas corpus, Wilson raises a single claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. He argues counsel was incompetent for failing to acquaint himself with the possible side effects of Wilson's medication and, therefore, failed to discharge his duty to conduct an independent investigation of the facts to meet the prosecution's case. We reject his contentions and affirm the judgment. We also deny Wilson's petition for habeas corpus.

II.

Facts and Procedural History

In 1997, Wilson pled no contest to making a terrorist threat (§ 422) in exchange for dismissal of a charge of brandishing a knife and a knife-use enhancement, and was granted probation. In 1998, he was sentenced to state prison after violating the terms of his probation. Wilson was subsequently committed to Atascadero State Hospital for the duration of his confinement as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) pursuant to sections 2962 and 2972. His MDO commitment was repeatedly extended until the commencement of the instant proceedings.

The petition that forms the basis for this appeal was filed on August 31, 2004, seeking Wilson's involuntary MDO commitment be extended once again. The petition alleged that Wilson, â€