P. v. Fekadu
Filed 9/18/07 P. v. Fekadu 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BERHU H. FEKADU, Defendant and Appellant. | D050097 (Super. Ct. No. SCD109580) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael D. Wellington, Judge. Affirmed.
In 1995 Berhu Fekadu pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to two counts of forcible lewd acts on a child (Pen. Code,[1] 288, subd. (b)) and three counts of assault with a deadly weapon and by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury ( 245, subd. (a)(1)). The court ordered him committed to the California Department of Mental Health ( 1026). In July 2006 the People filed a petition for extension of commitment ( 1026.5). In December the court found that by reason of a mental disorder, Fekadu represented a substantial danger of physical harm to others. It granted the petition and extended Fekadu's commitment for two years. Fekadu appeals. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
A January 2006 report by a psychologist and a psychiatrist from Patton State Hospital (Patton), where Fekadu was housed, stated that he had a diagnosis of schizophrenia, paranoid type, and took the medication Abilify. The psychologist and psychiatrist said: "Mr. Fekadu continues to be psychotic as evidenced by his delusions. He is dangerous as evidenced by his impulsive threatening behavior. At this time, Mr. Fekadu demonstrates a complete failure to accept responsibility for his crimes and to understand the relationship between his mental illness and his criminal behavior."
At the December 2006 recommitment hearing, the Patton psychologist testified that Fekadu had a severe mental disorder, but Fekadu did not believe he was mentally ill and denied committing the underlying crimes. The psychologist also testified that Fekadu presented a substantial risk of physical harm, medication was necessary to control his behavior, and there were times when he refused to take his medication. The Patton psychiatrist testified that Fekadu had a severe mental illness, Fekadu sometimes denied and sometimes minimized his crimes, and his insight into his illness fluctuated. The psychiatrist further testified that Fekadu took his medication only because he was required to do so and that he was a danger to others. For example, he was unable to regulate his sexual desires and would not take "no" for an answer.
Another psychologist examined Fekadu in November 2006. This psychologist reported that shortly before the examination, Fekadu threatened a staff member at Patton, and while in jail in the 10 days before the examination, he had to be restrained on three occasions, during one of which he kicked a sheriff's deputy and grabbed his crotch. Fekadu told the psychologist that he was innocent of the crimes of which he was convicted, denied having a mental illness, and made various claims, including being a king and savior and being poisoned by a psychiatrist. Testing showed that Fekadu presented a high risk for violence. The psychologist determined that Fekadu suffered from a severe mental disorder that was not in remission and could not be kept in remission without treatment, and noted that he had delusions even with his current treatment. The psychologist concluded that by reason of a severe mental disorder, Fekadu represented a substantial danger of physical harm to others. The psychologist's testimony at the December hearing was consistent with the report.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below. She 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 she lists, as possible but not arguable issues, whether there was substantial evidence that Fekadu presented a substantial risk of harm to others; whether the court erred by relying on doctors' testimony to support its finding that he represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others; and whether trial counsel properly waived Fekadu's right to a jury trial. We granted Fekadu permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Fekadu has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
AARON, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
