P. v. Wilson

Filed 5/31/07 P. v. Wilson CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

I.

Introduction

Appellant Bradley T. Wilson appeals from the order extending his commitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) under Penal Code[1] section 2970. He maintains there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that his mental illness could not be kept in remission without treatment. We affirm.

II.

Factual and Procedural Background

In 1997, Wilson was charged with making a terrorist threat and using a knife in its commission. ( 422, 12022, subd. (b)(1).) He was convicted of making a terrorist threat, and was ultimately ordered committed as an MDO.

The petition that forms the basis for this appeal was filed on December 28, 2005, seeking another extension of Wilsons involuntary MDO commitment. The petition alleged that Wilson, by reason of a severe mental disorder that is not in remission or cannot be kept in remission without treatment, represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others.

At a court trial on March 21, 2006, Wilson testified that he had paranoid schizophrenia. He was taking the medication Risperdal for his condition, which makes me not symptomatic. He had suffered some side effects while on previous medications. Approximately three weeks prior to the hearing, he prepared, for the first time, a Relapse Prevention Plan. He testified that, if released, he would continue to take his medication because he did not want to get sick and go back to the hospital, and cause my family any problems, or me. If he began experiencing the symptoms of his illness, which were [d]elusions, paranoia, [and] hearing voices, he would talk to his doctor or family, calm down [and] take deep breaths. Wilson acknowledged that he had a substance abuse problem, but felt that the drugs caused his mental illness. He agreed that he had a mental illness but testified, I suffer from it when Im on drugs . . . [] . . . and some medications. Wilson explained that he had insight into his mental illness, but he didnt discuss it with his doctors.

Dr. Domingo Laguitan, Wilsons psychiatrist at Napa State Hospital, testified that he had reviewed Wilsons medical records and had monthly in-depth meetings with him. Wilson previously had been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, with a secondary diagnosis of polysubstance dependence. Dr. Laguitan agreed with that diagnosis, which he explained was a serious diagnosis that requires constant treatment. It requires potent medications, and it also requires some degree of supportive therapy, for a patient to be able to maintain adequate functioning.

Dr. Laguitan opined that Wilsons mental illness was in remission in that he had no current symptoms, but he had doubts about whether Wilson would remain in remission if released into the community. He based his opinion on Wilsons lack of insight into his condition, the role of his medications, and the role of the CONREP[2] program once Wilson was released. In their conversations, Wilson told Dr. Laguitan that he doubt[ed] whether he has this diagnosis[,] . . . doubt[ed] whether he needs the medication over the long-term, and he feels strongly that he does not need CONREP [supervision], when he is discharged from the hospital. Although Wilson had recently acknowledged having a mental illness and prepared a Relapse Prevention form three weeks before the hearing, Dr. Laguitan believed these improvements needed to be sustained for a period of six months to one year, so that the patient fully understands. It was Dr. Laguitans opinion that, while Wilsons mental illness was in remission at the time of the hearing, it would not remain in remission unless his treatment continued. He believed Wilson would be a substantial danger to others if released.

Dr. Joginder Singh, also a psychiatrist at Napa State Hospital, had been treating Wilson since January 2006. He was in agreement with Wilsons diagnosis. On January 31, 2006, about two months prior to the hearing, Wilson told Dr. Singh that he did not believe he had a mental illness and that he believed his medication was causing his mental illness. Dr. Singh testified that Wilson was not suffering from any side effects of his medication. He also opined that Wilson needed structure in order to comply with his treatment plan.

Following trial, the court extended Wilsons commitment for another year.

III.

Discussion

Wilson maintains that there was no substantial evidence supporting the courts finding that his illness could not be kept in remission without treatment. We review this claim to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have made [this] finding[.] [Citation.] We consider the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment and must affirm if there is any substantial evidence supporting the finding. [Citations.] (People v. Valdez (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1013, 1016.)

In order to extend an individuals commitment as an MDO,the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual has a severe mental disorder that is not in remission or cannot be kept in remission without treatment, and that by reason of his or her severe mental disorder, the patient represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. ( 2972, subds. (a) & (e); see People v. Fernandez (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 117, 125.) Section 2962 defines the term cannot be kept in remission without treatment. A person cannot be kept in remission without treatment if during the year prior to the question being before . . . a trial court, he or she has been in remission and . . . has not voluntarily[3] followed the treatment plan. In determining if a person has voluntarily followed the treatment plan, the standard shall be whether the person has acted as a reasonable person would in following the treatment plan. ( 2962, subd. (a), italics added.)

Part of Wilsons treatment plan involved his acknowledgment of his mental illness and the necessity of taking medication to control it. As Dr. Singh explained: a recognition of ones mental illness . . . [] . . . is the first step towards treatment . . . . [] It should be long-term, you know. We want to see that kind of behavior in the patient for a period of six months to one year, so that the patient fully understands. Both of Wilsons psychiatrists testified that, while Wilson had made progress, he still lacked insight into his mental illness and the necessity of treating it with medication over a long-term period. Wilsons relatively recent acknowledgement that he suffered from a mental illness requiring ongoing medication was belied by his testimony at the hearing that he believed his mental illness was caused by his medication and illicit drugs. Wilson also acknowledged that he told Dr. Singh as recently as January 31, 2006, that the medication he was being given was causing his illness.

While Wilson had made significant progress in his treatment in the two months prior to the hearing, section 2962 requires the court to determine whether during the year prior to the question being before the . . . court, he . . . ha[d] not voluntarily followed the treatment plan. ( 2962, subd. (a).) Substantial evidence supports the trial courts finding that Wilsons mental illness could not be kept in remission without treatment, based on his noncompliance with his treatment plan during the year prior to the hearing.

IV.

Disposition

The order extending commitment is affirmed.

_________________________

Ruvolo, P. J.

We concur:

_________________________

Reardon, J.

_________________________

Sepulveda, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.

[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

[2] CONREP is the conditional release program.

[3]Contrary to Wilsons assertion, the court was not required to find that he had willfullyviolated or failed to comply with any of the terms of his treatment plan. The statute requires a finding that Wilson simply has not voluntarily followed the treatment plan. ( 2962, subd. (a).)