P. v. Jaimes

Filed 9/18/07 P. v. Jaimes CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Carl E. Davis, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

Chris Truax, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Bradley A. Weinreb, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Luis Antonio Jaimes appeals from the order extending his commitment to the Department of Mental Health, after a jury found that he continued to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen. Code, 2970, et seq.)^[1] Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it allowed the Peoples experts to testify as to what would happen to him if he were released from the MDO program. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1994, defendant assaulted his sister-in-law with a knife. He was thereafter committed as an MDO.

At the trial on the petition for defendants continued MDO treatment, defendants prior treating psychiatrist, Dr. David Niz, and his current treating psychiatrist, Dr. Paul Bong, testified. Both experts testified that defendant suffered from the severe mental disorder of schizophrenia, that his disorder was not in remission, and that, by reason of the disorder, he represented a substantial danger of physical harm to others.

The prosecution asked both experts what they thought would happen to defendant if he were released from the MDO program that day. Dr. Niz responded that, if released, defendant would slowly begin to have more predominant symptoms of his mental illness, since he did not have enough insight to seek help and take his medication. Dr. Niz stated that, without his medication, defendant would decompensate, meaning that his illness would be so overwhelming that it would affect his functioning severely. Dr. Niz opined that defendant would decompensate, become more psychotic, and have more symptoms, which would lead to behavior that [was] influenced by those symptoms. Dr. Niz added that the last time he was like that he committed a violent act. Dr. Bong responded that defendant would not be able to take care of his basic needs, and that if he did not have any outside support, he would probably end up homeless. Dr. Bong added that defendant most certainly would not seek medical or psychiatric help, since he did not believe he had a mental illness.

Defendant also testified at trial. He admitted that he sometimes cheeks his medicine when he does not feel like taking it. He said he does not feel like taking his medicine when he does not feel right mentally, at which times he sees visions. Then, when asked if he thought that additional treatment would be good for him, defendant responded that he just want[ed] them to take away the medicine and he did not want to take drugs. Defendant further said he had a very, very powerful mind, and that in his dreams, he killed people. He said that he just had a dream, where he saw himself do bad things two days before the trial. When asked about his last dream, he said: Its when I was little I was an artist and I had a lot of friends. And that stayed in my mind, that we would get together. And thats why I have them here in my mind. When I see somebody like that famous, they speak to me in my mind. And we speak from mind to mind. And thats how I spend my time there at the hospital.

A jury confirmed the extension of defendants MDO commitment.

ANALYSIS

I. The Evidence Was Sufficient to Support Defendants Extended

MDO Commitment

Defendant claims that the trial court erred in allowing the Peoples experts to testify as to what would happen to him if he were released into the community. He then contends that his mental illness symptoms were in remission, that there was no competent evidence that he had been physically violent in the past year, and that there was substantial evidence that he had followed his treatment plan. We conclude that the expert witnesses offered appropriate opinions and that there was sufficient evidence to support the extension of his MDO commitment.

A. Standard of Review

We view the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment and determine whether it discloses substantial evidence to support the jurys finding. (People v. Beeson (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1393, 1398 (Beeson).)

B. There Was Sufficient Evidence

Under the MDO law, continued treatment requires that the person satisfy certain criteria: that (1) he continues to have a severe mental disorder; (2) his mental disorder is not in remission or cannot be kept in remission without treatment; and (3) he continues to present a substantial danger of physical harm to others. (Beeson, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 1398-1399; 2972, subd. (c).)

As to the first element, the record clearly establishes that defendant continued to have a severe mental disorder. Dr. Niz testified that defendant had schizophrenia. Defendant had hallucinations, disorganized behavior, and delusions, and he needed to take lithium and other antipsychotic medicine to treat his symptoms. Dr. Bong similarly testified that defendant still exhibited symptoms of mental illness, and that he suffered from schizophrenia. He observed that defendant talked unintelligibly and to himself, that he was not entirely coherent when answering questions, and that he often daydreamed. Defendant himself testified that he had a very powerful mind, and that he killed people in his dreams. He also said he spent his time at the hospital with the friends he had in his mind. He said they communicated from mind to mind. Defendants testimony speaks for itself in demonstrating the truth of Dr. Nizs and Dr. Bongs diagnosis that defendant had a severe mental disorder.

Regarding the second element, the word remission is defined as a finding that the overt signs and symptoms of the severe mental disorder are controlled either by psychotropic medication or psychosocial support. Also, a person that cannot be kept in remission without treatment includes situations where the person has been in remission for the past year, but also has exhibited unexcused physical violence, has threatened another with substantial physical harm, intentionally has caused property damage, or has failed to voluntarily follow his treatment plan. Therefore, under the last exception, by establishing that the defendant has failed to voluntarily follow his treatment plan, the People can show that defendants mental disorder cannot be kept in remission without treatment. (Beeson, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 1399, fns. omitted; 2962, subd. (a).) Both Dr. Niz and Dr. Bong testified that defendants mental illness was not in remission. The record clearly shows that defendant was currently suffering from mental illness. Furthermore, the People showed that defendants mental disorder could not be kept in remission without treatment by establishing that the defendant has failed to voluntarily follow his treatment plan. An essential part of defendants treatment plan was taking his medication. However, defendant had a history of cheeking his medication (putting the pills in the side of his cheek, rather than swallowing them). The nurses had to crush defendants pills and put them in his food, in order to ensure that he would take them. At trial, defendant admitted that he did not want to take his medication and said that he just want[ed] them to take away the medicine. Furthermore, defendant was not regularly attending in his group classes, which were designed to help him develop interventions to reduce the intensity of his symptoms. Even when he did attend, he did not pay attention or participate. Thus, by establishing that defendant failed to voluntarily follow his treatment plan, the People showed that defendants mental disorder could not be kept in remission without treatment.

As to the final element, both Dr. Niz and Dr. Bong testified that defendant posed a substantial risk of harm to others because of his severe mental disorder. Dr. Niz testified that defendant did not have enough insight to seek help or take his medication. Dr. Niz opined that, without medication, defendant would decompensate, become more psychotic, and have more symptoms, which would lead to behavior that [was] influenced by those symptoms. Dr. Niz added that the last time he was like that he committed a violent act. Dr. Bong testified that defendant had exhibited dangerous behavior and assaulted other patients twice in the past year. The month before the trial, defendant threw an apple at one of the hospital staff members, without provocation. The evidence clearly supported a finding that defendant met all the requirements for an extension of his MDO commitment.

Defendant complains that the court improperly allowed Dr. Niz and Dr. Bong to opine that, if released to the community, he would probably not remain on his medication, that if he stopped taking his medication, he could become violent again, and that he could end up homeless. He further argues that there was substantial evidence from which the jury could have concluded that he was in remission, and that he did not meet the specific legal definition . . . for [being] unable to be kept in remission without treatment. He concludes that the allegedly improper testimony that he would become violent and homeless, if released from the MDO program, was prejudicial, because the jury could easily have concluded that [he] no longer met the MDO criteria had they not been swayed by this evidence. We disagree.

The court properly allowed Dr. Niz to opine that, if released, defendant could decompensate and become violent, since Dr. Niz was responding to questions regarding whether defendant would pose a substantial danger of physical harm to others. Similarly, Dr. Bong offered his opinion that defendant would not be able to take care of his basic needs, and would not seek medical or psychiatric help, if released, in the context of the question of whether or not defendant could be kept in remission without treatment.

Even if these limited portions of the experts testimonies were improperly admitted, any error was harmless. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.) It is not reasonably probable that a more favorable result would have occurred in the absence of the evidence to which defendant now objects, since both experts testified that defendant met all the criteria for extending his MDO commitment. Moreover, defendants own testimony bolstered their position. Although defendant contends there was evidence from which the jury could have concluded that he was in remission, the jury weighed all the evidence and made its finding. We cannot reweigh the evidence on appeal. (See People v. Cochran (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 8, 12-13.)

Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment, as we must, we conclude that defendants MDO commitment was properly extended.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

/s/ HOLLENHORST

J.

We concur:

/s/ RAMIREZ

P.J.

/s/ GAUT

J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.

Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.

^[1] Unless indicated, all further statutory references will be to the Penal Code.