Filed 12/21/05 P. v. Dobson CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
STEVEN JAY DOBSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
F048015
(Super. Ct. No. 599270-6)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Brant Bramer, Commissioner.
Paul Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
In 1998, appellant Steven Dobson pled guilty to vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and admitted four strike [1] allegations. The court found him not guilty by reason of insanity (§ 1026) and ordered him committed to Patton State Hospital for a maximum term of commitment of 25 years to life. Since then, appellant has been tried on outpatient status under the Conditional Release Program twice. Most recently in December 2004, appellant was placed in the Phoenix Program through the State Department of Mental Health. In January 2005, appellant absconded from the program. In March 2005, the court granted a request for revocation of outpatient status (§ 1608). This appeal followed.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Licensed Clinical Social Worker Mark Duarte and therapist Perry Rankin testified that they recommended appellant's outpatient status be revoked because he had violated the terms of his conditional release program in several regards. He no longer believed he had a mental health diagnosis and did not take a new medication prescribed for him. He argued with his landlord because he wanted to put a deadbolt on his bedroom door and paint his room blue. He refused to cooperate with Mr. Rankin, who wanted to contact appellant's â€
| Description | Decision relating to the revocation of release. |
| Rating |
