Filed 11/7/13 P. v. Moore CA5
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
ARDELL MOORE, JR.,
Defendant and
Appellant.
F064957
(Super.
Ct. No. 12CRAD680733)
THE
COURT
title="">*
APPEAL from a judgment of the
Superior Court of
County. Martin C. Suits, Judge.
Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney
General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo
Appellant, Ardell
Moore, Jr., appeals from an order requiring him to submit to involuntary
administration of psychotropic medication.
Following independent review of the record pursuant to
affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Moore was
committed to Atascadero State Hospital as a Sexually Violent Predator on May 6,
2001. On March 16, 2006, he was
transferred to Coalinga State Hospital (the Hospital).
On January
25, 2011, Moore attempted to attack another patient with a pair of scissors but
was prevented from doing so by hospital staff.
On January
23, 2012, the Department of Mental Health filed a “Petition for an Order to
Compel Involuntary Treatment with Psychotropic Medication†seeking a court order
authorizing the Hospital to involuntarily administer psychotropic medication to
Moore.
On March 5,
2012, at a hearing on the petition, Dr. Grafman testified that he began working
as a Staff Psychiatrist at the Hospital in September 2011, and had been Moore’s
treating psychiatrist since December 2011.
Moore had a diagnosis of paraphilia, exhibitionism, and schizophrenia,
paranoid type. He had a history of
molesting children and had raped four women when he was in his twenties. Moore was first hospitalized around 1980. Moore suffered from delusions. He believed hospital staff was taking blood
from him at night and that he was Martin Luther King, Jr. He also would talk to himself and say he was
speaking with spirits and he made his own paper money. Dr. Grafman also testified that during one
incident, Moore exposed his genitals to a peer and then rushed at him with a
pair of scissors in his hand. He was
subdued by staff before he was able to do any harm. Moore was not taking
occurred.
Moore
denied being mentally ill and believed he did not need to take any psychotropic
medication. However, in Dr. Grafman’s
professional opinion, without psychotropic medication, Moore was a danger to
others and he did not have the capacity to decide whether to accept or refuse
such medication.
At the
conclusion of the hearing, the court issued an order authorizing the Hospital
to involuntarily administer appropriate psychotropic medication to Moore.
Moore’s appellate counsel has filed
a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no
issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People
v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
436.) However, in a document filed in this
court on May 21, 2013, Moore makes a long, rambling, unintelligible statement
that does not appear to present any issues relating to the court’s order noted
above.
Following
an independent review of the record,
we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
June 12, 2012, this court directed Moore to file a brief addressing whether the
order appealed from is an appealable order. On July 5, 2012, Moore’s appellate counsel
filed a brief contending that the order at issue is an appealable order within
the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1. We agree.
The order presently under review is appealable as a special order made after final judgment in a
civil action. (Gross v. Superior
Court (1954) 42 Cal.2d 816, 820; People v. Christiana (2010) 190
Cal.App.4th 1040, 1046-1047; 6 Witkin, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Criminal
Appeal, § 64, p. 341.)
