Filed 7/13/26 P. v. Harris CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
A173496
v.
MARVIN HARRIS, (Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. 05000254904)
Defendant and Appellant.
Marvin Harris appeals from an order compelling involuntary treatment
with antipsychotic drugs. His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief
setting forth the applicable facts and law pursuant to Conservatorship of
Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.). Appointed counsel informed Harris
that he could file a supplemental brief, but Harris has not done so. Our
discretionary review of the record discloses no arguable issues, and we
therefore affirm.
BACKGROUND
Harris is an inmate housed at the Martinez Detention Facility. In
January 2025,1 the Contra Costa County Department of Health Services
(Department) filed an ex parte petition pursuant to Penal Code section 2603,
Further references to dates will be to the year 2025 unless otherwise
1
specified.
1
subdivision (d) for an order authorizing involuntary interim administration of
psychotropic medication to Harris.
The trial court granted the petition on January 17, appointed counsel
for Harris and authorized administration of medication pending an expedited
hearing.
The declaration of psychiatrist, Dr. Brian Holoyda, stated that he had
diagnosed Harris with schizophrenia and described the symptoms supporting
this diagnosis. Harris had become progressively more psychotic, agitated and
violent toward others since declining treatment with antipsychotic
medication in May 2024. Holoyda related staff reports that in
December 2024, Harris threw Kool-Aid at a deputy, threatened to throw
feces, hit or kill deputies and was found to have feces on the desk in his cell.
In another incident that month, Harris assaulted a peer without provocation
and was described by a mental health clinician as “rambling, hyperverbal
and grandiose,” “delusional, verbally aggressive and disorganized.”
Dr. Holoyda explained his determination that Harris lacked capacity to
provide informed consent or refusal of treatment with psychiatric medication,
described unsuccessful efforts to obtain informed consent, discussed the
expected benefits and possible side effects of medication, absence of
alternative treatments and risks of further deterioration and danger to self
and others.
On February 10, the court allowed the interim order to lapse after
being informed that Harris was taking medication voluntarily.
On April 7, the Department filed and the court granted a new petition
for involuntary interim treatment. The declaration of psychiatrist
Zachary Tiger explained that Harris had improved significantly while
voluntarily taking his medication, then refused treatment and
2
decompensated. Incidents reported by mental health clinicians included
Harris was “yelling and screaming” from his cell, threatening to beat up other
inmates, being unable to engage in reasonable conversation, displaying
increased agitation, threatening to kill a deputy and making a weapon from
books wrapped in medical tape in order to do so and “gassing” deputies. His
medication compliance had “slowly declined” and “most recently he ha[d]
declined 4 of the last 6 days.”
An evidentiary hearing was held on April 21, at which the Department
presented testimony from Deputy Sheriff Simone Sheppard and Dr. Matthew
Paley. Sheppard testified that on February 15 she heard Harris and another
inmate “swearing at each other and making threats” to beat each other up.
Harris continued to “scream and swear” despite directions to stop.
On March 28, Sheppard was told to remove all personal items from Harris’s
cell due to him “throwing bodily fluids on a deputy.” Searching the cell while
Harris was out, Sheppard found a clear plastic bag, tied at the top and full of
a “clear, foul-smelling liquid.” Earlier, Harris had been “incessantly”
shouting sexually abusive comments at Sheppard and another deputy, and
when he returned to his cell, he was very upset about not having his
belongings and “continued to do what he was doing at the beginning of the
shift, which was just shouting explicit remarks towards me and my partner,
saying that he wanted to rape us, kill us, have sex with us . . . . ”
On March 30, Harris was again “screaming abusive remarks” at
Sheppard and when a mental health clinician tried to make contact with him,
he “spoke over her,” screamed at her, “told her to go get his property and
called her a ho.” He repeatedly said he was going to find Sheppard and kill
her “when I get out in 30 days.” Sheppard acknowledged that Harris was in
a locked cell and did not have a potential release date.
3
Dr. Paley testified as an expert in psychiatry. He had known Harris
about six months and had had six to eight clinical visits with him, including
on the morning of the hearing. He observed psychiatric symptoms including
a disorganized pattern of thought and lack of insight. The former was
reflected in rambling speech that did not make sense, with references to
people wanting to harm him. Harris showed a lack of insight in that he said
he did not believe he has mental illness or needs to take medication. In visits
over the preceding two months, Paley had observed agitation and paranoia,
and Harris “endorsed thoughts that he wants to harm other people.”
Dr. Paley diagnosed Harris with schizophrenia, with symptoms of
disorganized thought and behavior and “[d]elusions of paranoia.” In reaching
his diagnosis, Paley had reviewed Harris’s medical records, considered his
clinical visits and discussed Harris’s symptoms with the other psychiatrists,
deputies who worked on Harris’s module, and a mental health counselor.
Paley opined that Harris required treatment with antipsychotic medication,
it was probable there would be serious harm to his physical or mental health
if he was not treated, and he did not have the capacity to consent or refuse
treatment because he did not believe he has a mental illness. Paley testified
that schizophrenia can become harder to treat over time and the paranoid
thoughts associated with the illness could result in Harris “continuing to
exhibit aggressive, erratic behavior and that could put him into
environments . . . that are high risk of violence towards himself or someone
else . . . .” Without treatment, Harris would pose a risk of physical harm to
himself or others “by way of a fight or something like that.”
Dr. Paley testified that Harris’s prescribed medication can help with
disorganized thought, paranoia and mood. Since the involuntary medication
proceeding was dropped in February, Harris had generally taken his
4
medication but there were “some missed doses.” Paley had prescribed
emergency medication for Harris at least twice in the month before the
hearing. Regarding those situations, Harris told Paley one of the deputies
had “called him the ‘N’ word” and had stolen his food, and said he had thrown
liquid on a deputy.
Dr. Paley testified that antipsychotic medication is the main form of
treatment for schizophrenia, the only viable option for treating Harris and
the least intrusive way to make him not dangerous to himself or others.
At the conclusion of the testimony, the trial court noted that it was “an
interesting question” whether there should be an involuntary medication
order for someone who “is generally agreeing to medications” but the issue
before the court was “danger to self or others.” (See Pen. Code, § 2603,
subd. (c)(2).) The court concluded based on Dr. Paley’s testimony that Harris
had a serious mental illness as required by the governing statute. (Id.,
subd. (c)(1).) The court acknowledged that Harris was in custody, behind
locked doors, when he was making threats but stated, “he is making them
repeatedly and has thrown unidentified liquids at . . . a Deputy. . . . [¶] Given
the nature of the liquids that have been found in his cell and the extensive
threats he’s made towards female deputies, I do find sufficient, clear, and
convincing evidence of a danger to self or others.” The court granted the
petition and issued an order authorizing involuntary treatment with
psychiatric medication. Harris filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
“In an indigent criminal defendant’s first appeal as a matter of right,
the Court of Appeal must independently review the record if appointed
counsel represents he or she has found no arguable issues. (Anders v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
5
(Wende).)” (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 535.) Ben C. declined to extend
Anders and Wende to appeals from imposition of a civil conservatorship.
(Ben C., at p. 535.) Ben C. held, “If appointed counsel in a conservatorship
appeal finds no arguable issues, counsel . . . should (1) inform the court he or
she has found no arguable issues to be pursued on appeal; and (2) file a brief
setting out the applicable facts and the law.” (Id. at p. 544.) In addition, the
“conservatee is to be provided a copy of the brief and informed of the right to
file a supplemental brief.” (Id. at p. 544, fn. 6.) The reviewing court may
then dismiss the appeal if there are no arguable issues. (Id. at p. 544.)
Alternatively, the court has discretion to conduct an independent review.
(Id. at p. 544, fn. 7 [appellate court may choose to retain an appeal rather
than dismiss it]; accord, People v. Blanchard (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 1020,
1026.) While Ben C. addressed civil conservatorship proceedings, like
procedures have been applied in criminal contexts where Wende review is not
required. (E.g., People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 [postconviction
relief under remedial legislation]; Blanchard, at pp. 1022, 1025 [competency
to stand trial].)
Harris’s counsel followed Ben C. procedures. Counsel reviewed the
record and corresponded with Harris about her findings and his views of the
case. By letter, counsel advised Harris of the nature of her brief; informed
him that he could file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the filing of
counsel’s brief and that if requested counsel would send him a copy of the
record on appeal, and that counsel would remain available to brief issues as
requested by this court.
Although we are not required to conduct an independent review of the
record, we have done so. The requirements of Penal Code section 2603 were
6
satisfied, Harris was represented by able counsel, and the court’s findings
were supported by substantial evidence.
DISPOSITION
The order authorizing involuntary administration of antipsychotic
medication is affirmed.
7
STEWART, P. J.
We concur.
MILLER, J.
DESAUTELS, J.
People v. Harris (A173496)
8