P. v. Hill

Filed 12/30/09 P. v. Hill CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

Shawn Hill appeals a judgment committing him to the California Department of Mental Health for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) (Pen. Code,  2962) following his conviction of assault with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1)). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that Hill's severe mental disorder was a cause or an aggravating factor in the commission of his commitment offense. ( 2962, subd. (d)(1).) We affirm.

FACTS

Hill filed a petition for hearing ( 2966, subd. (b)) following a Board of Prison Terms determination that he met the MDO criteria. He waived his right to a jury trial.

At trial Joan Odom, M.D., a psychiatrist, testified that Hill met all the criteria for an MDO commitment. She said he had a "bipolar disorder" with "psychotic features" constituting a severe mental disorder. Hill has "mood symptoms that consist of depression and mania as well as psychosis." From an early age, he had "mood lability" and "impaired impulse control."

Hill's commitment offense involved assault with a deadly weapon. Dr. Odom said Hill "had part of his left ear bitten off by another transient." Several hours later, when the man who bit Hill was sitting on a park bench, Hill approached him from behind. Hill hit him over the head several times with a hammer. This resulted in a "bloody two-inch gouge" in the victim's head. Dr. Odom testified that "Hill's severe mental disorder was an aggravating factor in the assault."

At trial the prosecutor and Hill agreed to introduce into evidence several mental evaluations of Hill by psychologists, including reports by Eric Simon, Ph.D., Richard Starrett, Ph.D., and J. Kelly Moreno, Ph.D.

In his report Dr. Simon said that Hill's mental disorders were not a cause or an aggravating factor in the commitment offense. "Rather, this crime appears related to a pattern of increasing retaliatory aggression," Hill's antisocial proclivities and his "transient-criminal lifestyle."

Dr. Starrett concluded that at the time of the offense Hill's mental disorders were a cause or an aggravating factor. He noted that Hill's "thinking was fuzzy" and he had not taken his medications. Dr. Starrett said, "We know that if [Hill] is not on his required psychotropic medications, his mental illness is active and he acts out."

Dr. Moreno determined that Hill's mental disorder was a cause or aggravating factor in the crime. He said Hill admitted that he was "fucked up and out of [his] mind." Dr. Moreno noted that Hill acknowledged that when he committed the assault he had not taken his medications and said, "My Schizophrenia gets all fucked up." Hill had also "boasted" about committing this offense, was "excited the victim had been hospitalized," and asked, " "Did you see his brain?"

DISCUSSION

I. Substantial Evidence

Hill contends that the MDO commitment judgment must be reversed. He claims there is insufficient evidence that his mental disorder was a cause or an aggravating factor in his commitment offense. We disagree.

In deciding the sufficiency of the evidence, we draw all reasonable inferences from the record to support the judgment. (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206.) "An MDO commitment requires a finding that the defendant suffers from a severe mental disorder that was a cause of or an aggravating factor in the underlying crime." (People v. Valdez (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1013, 1017;  2962, subd. (d)(1).) "Whether or not a prisoner is an MDO is the proper subject for expert opinion. Such an opinion necessarily entails an opinion as to each of the criterion or elements thereof." (People v. Miller (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 913, 917.)

Here there was expert testimony on the element that Hill challenges. Dr. Odom testified, "I found evidence to support my conclusion that Mr. Hill's severe mental disorder was an aggravating factor in the assault." (Italics added.) She based her conclusion on the manner in which Hill committed the offense and his conduct and statements thereafter. She said, "[T]he severe nature of the crime would imply some mood lability and inability . . . to utilize adequate coping skills. And it fits with his historical symptoms of mental illness."

Hill suggests that his offense was only an act of retaliation. Dr. Simon opined that it was unrelated to a mental disorder and only involved "a pattern of increasing retaliatory aggression between [Hill] and the victim." He said, "The prisoner's Antisocial proclivities and a transient-criminal lifestyle also seem to be factors." But Dr. Odom disagreed with Dr. Simon's conclusions. She said that Hill "readily admitted culpability for the crime and even led police to the location of the weapon . . . . This would be most unusual if it was a crime motivated purely out of antisocial or even retaliatory urges."

Hill claims his offense was a "deliberate and purposeful act." But Dr. Odom said Hill's "ready admission of culpability shows some degree of impulsivity." We do not resolve disputes between experts; that is a matter for the trial court. From Dr. Odom's testimony the court could reasonably infer that Hill's mental disorder was a cause or an aggravating factor in the commission of the offense.

But, even so, there was additional evidence that was admitted by stipulation. Dr. Starrett said, "The circumstances of the current offense suggest bizarre behavior and overreactions that are a consequence of underlying psychiatric symptoms . . . ." Dr. Moreno noted that Hill "boasted about his behavior" and "acknowledged he had not been taking his medications," and, when unmedicated, said, "My Schizophrenia gets all fucked up." Hill was "excited" by the fact that the victim had to be taken to the hospital and he wanted law enforcement to examine the injuries he had caused to the victim's brain. The evidence is sufficient.

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P.J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.

John A. Trice, Judge

Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

______________________________

Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Keith H. Borjon, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, A. Scott Hayward, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com