Filed 5/17/18 P. v. Stockman CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
GREGORY CHATTEN STOCKMAN,
Defendant and Appellant.

A152749

(Sonoma County
Super. Ct. No. SCR20626)


In 1993, defendant Gregory Chatten Stockman was charged with attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, §§ 187 subd. (a), 664, 245, subd. (a)(1).) He was found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to Napa State Hospital. (§ 1026.) In August 2016, defendant filed a petition seeking conditional release pursuant to section 1026.2. After a hearing, the trial court granted defendant’s petition but denied a request to transfer his outpatient supervision from Sonoma County to San Francisco. Defendant appeals.
His counsel has submitted an opening brief indicating he has reviewed the record and found no arguable issues to be pursued on appeal. (See Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 544.) The brief provides a narrative of the facts relevant to the pertinent legal issues. Counsel provided defendant with a copy of this brief and informed him of the right to file a supplemental brief. Defendant has done so. He focuses on two things—the trial court’s refusal to transfer supervision to San Francisco, and the terms and conditions he must agree to in order to be released to CONREP (forensic conditional release program). While it would be appropriate under Ben C. to dismiss the appeal, we have reviewed the record and affirm the order from which he appeals. (Ibid.; People v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1436, 1437–1439.)
BACKGROUND
On August 3, 2016, defendant petitioned the trial court for transfer to outpatient services pursuant to section 1026.2. The court conducted a trial on the matter over the course of several days.
Defendant testified on his own behalf. He acknowledged he had not been “open and transparent in the past” while in CONREP, but maintained he would be going forward. As to financial matters, which had led, in part, to the past revocation of CONREP, defendant stated financial and legal stress were “two major stressors, triggers,” and when asked by the court if he would “be completely transparent above and beyond transparent about financial transactions,” if released on CONREP again, defendant replied, “Oh, definitely.” He stated he had relied on a friend of his, Jan Jack, as being a part of his community support system but stated if ordered to have no contact with her, he would “[a]bsolutely” obey. As to his employment upon release, he hoped to obtain employment but stated “If they give me permission later down the line to be employed or work for somebody else it is entirely up to [CONREP]” to decide.
Three physicians, two of whom were on defendant’s treating team, testified defendant had, among other things, unspecified personality disorder and traits of paranoia, obsessive compulsiveness, and narcissism. All three doctors were of the opinion defendant would be unsuccessful in CONREP.
When defendant was asked why he thought he would be successful in the face of such opinions, he veered off topic mentioning a complaint and a lawsuit he had filed against a former treatment team member and asserted “[t]hese people don’t forget. They retaliate. I will only tell you that these people I’ve been involved with in the past don’t want to see me out.” The judge then interrupted, asking if this “could be very well a demonstration of paranoid behavior,” to which defendant replied “No, it’s the truth.” He went on to state “I am willing to bend over backwards to bury—bury, whatever they call it, and work with these people and do my very, very best to prove that I—I can be out there. [¶] But it doesn’t look like—these are people that are coming back and haunting me, and if you want to call it paranoia narcissist—if Sonoma County CONREP does not want me in their program even though I agreed to follow all the rules, I’m requesting the courts, if possible, to place me in an alternative program or transfer me to another county CONREP. . . . That’s how I feel. Thank you.”
In the final hearing on the matter, on October 5, 2017, the court indicated that despite the adverse medical testimony, it would grant defendant’s petition for transfer to outpatient treatment.
Defense counsel then asked the court, “The CONREP folks that are going to be supervising him, the Court’s authority, would it include possibly having a different organization in CONREP supervise him, like a San Francisco CONREP for example?” The court was unclear if it had the authority to do so, having never considered such a request. In any event, the court pointed out Stockman’s “support system” was in Sonoma, and the court was certain the Sonoma CONREP would “exercise their duties diligently and appropriately in spite of the fact they recommended against him being released.”
Defense counsel also expressed concern about the length of the CONREP contract Stockman had received, claiming it “seemed to be in excess [of] what would normally” be proposed. The court stated it had not received the contract, but given defendant was “more sophisticated than the average person on CONREP . . . [as] most people do not have the ability to engage in financial transactions which ultimately led to his being returned to the hospital,” the contract may have needed to be more detailed “to cover extra bases.”
The following day, on October 6, the court issued an order after trial, finding defendant was “an appropriate candidate to be transferred to CONREP for supervised release in the community.” The court did not expressly address defendant’s request to transfer supervision from Sonoma to San Francisco or his complaint about the terms and conditions. A month later defendant appealed.
DISCUSSION
In denying defendant’s request to transfer supervision to San Francisco, the trial court acted well within its discretion. As defendant observes, section 1604 certainly suggests a trial court has discretion to order outpatient supervision in a county other than the county of commitment. And while the trial court expressed some question as to whether it had such discretion, we need not definitively decide this issue. As the trial court went on to state, even if it had such discretion, it would not transfer defendant’s CONREP, pointing out his “support system” was in Sonoma and it was confident the Sonoma CONREP would “exercise their duties diligently and appropriately in spite of the fact they recommended against him being released.” This was an eminently reasonable basis for refusing to transfer supervision to San Francisco.
As for defendant’s complaint about the terms and conditions to which he must agree, this is not an issue he can properly pursue in this appeal. The trial court did not have the CONREP terms and conditions before it. Nor did it, even orally, render a definitive ruling. The court merely observed that given defendant’s prior difficulties on CONREP, it was not surprising that the program would insist on additional terms and conditions “to cover extra bases.” In short, defendant failed to develop a record in the trial court and failed to procure any ruling for us to review. We therefore do not consider this issue properly before us. As it is, it appears the trial court reasonably observed that additional terms and conditions were warranted given defendant’s prior failures in the outpatient program.
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order of October 6, 2017 is affirmed.
 




_________________________
Banke, J.


We concur:


_________________________
Humes, P.J.


_________________________
Dondero, J.























A152749, People v. Stockman