Filed 9/24/26 P. v. Perez CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, A171114
v.
DARIO MUNDO PEREZ, (Napa County
Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. 18CR002028)
In August 2020, after being found not guilty by reason of insanity in
firing a gun on a police officer in a public park, defendant Dario Mundo Perez
was admitted to the State Department of State Hospitals (DSH). In August
2023, Perez was restored to sanity and found eligible for community
outpatient treatment. In May 2024, Perez’s outpatient status was revoked
and he was returned to DSH.
Perez appeals from the order revoking his outpatient status, asserting
the revocation was not based on substantial evidence. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
I. Underlying Offense and Initial DSH Commitment
On June 21, 2018, Perez made several 911 calls, reporting that he
found an AR-15 assault rifle in the grass at a public park in downtown Napa.
Perez told the responding police officers that he wanted to die. He then
pulled out a handgun, aimed it at the officers, and fired; the gun misfired.
1
Perez was subdued, arrested, and taken into custody. It was later revealed
that at the time of the offenses, Perez had been experiencing auditory
hallucinations with persecutory themes, paranoia, and suicidal ideation.
In August 2020, after finding Perez not guilty by reason of insanity
(Pen. Code, § 1026)1 on two counts of attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a),
664) and related personal use of a firearm enhancements (§ 12022.53,
subd. (b)), the trial court committed Perez to DSH with the maximum term of
confinement of life.
II. Restoration of Sanity and Outpatient Status
Following a hearing in August 2023, the trial court ruled Perez had
been restored to sanity, pursuant to section 1026.2, and directed that he be
committed to an outpatient conditional release program (CONREP).
In October 2023, Perez was placed at Gateways Satellite (Gateways), a
statewide transitional residential program located in Los Angeles County;
Gateways is an unlocked facility that provides the highest level of care to
individuals within the CONREP system. Approximately five months later, in
March 2024, Perez’s treatment team determined he was eligible for transfer
to a lower-level care program—Forensic Assertive Community Treatment
(FACT)—in Sacramento. However, due to an organizational change in the
FACT program, Perez’s transfer was postponed. Ultimately, the transfer was
canceled “due to the mounting concerns about his readiness for a lower level
of care and his inability to meet the demands at Gateways . . . .”
III. Proceedings to Revoke Outpatient Status
In May 2024, the People filed a petition for an order revoking
outpatient status under sections 1608 and 1609, based on the
recommendation of CONREP Community Program Director Dolores
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
Flores-Chavez, LCSW. The CONREP report attached a revocation letter
from Gateways which detailed the circumstances leading to the request for
revocation of outpatient status.
At the revocation hearing, the prosecution presented four witnesses;
Perez testified on his own behalf.
A. Diane Levy
Diane Levy is a licensed clinical social worker and a senior forensic
clinician at Gateways. At the time of her testimony, she had been working as
a clinician at Gateways for 23 years. Levy had been Perez’s treating
clinician/therapist during his time at Gateways. She met with him on a
weekly basis. She tried to work with Perez regarding “the difference between
internal feelings and emotions and external circumstances . . . .”
Levy explained that Perez began developing “therapy interfering
behaviors,” in which he focused on external circumstances instead of
examining his internal feelings about those circumstances. Levy further
explained Perez’s emotions were not the problem; rather, it was the way he
went about dealing with them. Instead of addressing his emotions in various
situations, he filed formal grievances with the licensing board. Although
Perez was entitled to file such grievances, Levy explained this behavior was
problematic because Perez was focused on external factors and blaming the
program or people in the program rather than assessing his internal feelings
about the circumstances.
Levy testified to another example: When Perez was upset with Levy
for failing to follow up on his request for new clothes, he reported the incident
to her supervisor instead of first attempting to resolve the issue with her.
Levy told Perez that he could talk to her about any issues he had, which he
was initially receptive to, but later Perez told staff that he believed Levy was
3
“setting him up . . . .” In another instance, Perez filed a grievance when he
felt he was unfairly treated at a barbecue because he was the only person
who did not receive any food.
Other treatment-interfering behaviors included Perez’s penchant for
“splitting staff,” which is “basically going from one staff [member] to another
to . . . get an answer that you like.” As an example, Perez would speak with
his former clinician Brian Roy whenever he disagreed with his Gateways
treatment team. Levy explained that reaching out to Roy was not
problematic in itself; rather, it was Perez’s attempts to get a different answer
than the one being given by his current treatment team.
Levy described additional instances of treatment-interfering behavior.
One involved Perez’s asking for a book on how to set up a business. She
denied his request, advising him that he needed to focus on his current
treatment, not on what he might do in the future. Levy encouraged self-
improvement in the form of learning “coping strategies and problem solving
strategies” for transitioning into the community, “rather than jumping to
starting [his] own business.” Levy testified that Perez’s privilege of
unsupervised group outings was suspended because staff found coffee, which
was contraband, in the bathroom that Perez and three other patients shared.
Levy described Perez’s words and actions as being inconsistent, which
made it difficult for the team to accurately treat Perez. Throughout his seven
months at Gateways, Perez would seem to be progressing when they spoke in
their individual sessions, but later his actions “would reveal that he really
wasn’t authentically progressing.”
Levy explained that in March 2024, Perez’s CONREP representatives
and Gateways staff planned to send Perez to a new program called FACT,
which would have been a step down from Gateways. However, due to a
4
change at the other program, Perez’s transfer was delayed. This caused
Perez’s frustration to increase, which interfered with his treatment. In the
weeks following the initial recommendation and delay, Perez’s behavior
demonstrated that he “needed more time and [a] more structured setting” to
work on coping and problem-solving skills “without having to worry about the
community because it’s a locked facility . . . .” Ultimately, Perez was moved
to Golden Legacy, which is an Institution for Mental Disease (IMD) and a
locked facility, for a higher level of care.
B. Cynthia Lermond
Cynthia Lermond, Psy.D., testified as an expert in CONREP
revocations. Part of her role as the community program director for
Gateways CONREP in Los Angeles County and San Diego County was to
evaluate whether patients were appropriate for outpatient treatment, and
she estimated that she had “interfaced with more revocations than anyone
else” in California because she ran the largest CONREP program in the state.
Dr. Lermond oversaw Perez’s treatment at Gateways. Concerns about
his behavior quickly emerged. The treatment team saw Perez’s acting with
“a pattern . . . of deceptiveness, lack of engagement in treatment, [and]
disregard for treatment”; he was described as “engaging in behaviors that
were suspect.” Dr. Lermond spoke with Levy about the need to firmly and
directly address the behaviors with Perez and to explain to him “the
importance of his meaningfully engaging in treatment and being
transparent” to prepare him for a CONREP program where he would be less
monitored.
Dr. Lermond opined that Perez “present[ed] with a superficial
engagement. [There was] a cagey and deceptive approach to treatment.
There was a sense of entitlement, a bit of grandiosity, pathological issues
5
that we had a lot of questions about.” She described Perez as “seeing the
treatment team as an adversary.”
As Dr. Lermond and the treatment team became more familiar with
Perez, they believed he may have an antisocial personality disorder. This
was a risk factor because individuals with this character structure are more
closely linked to violence. Additionally, “individuals who are more deceptive
tend to not do well in out-patient settings where they’re counted on to be
forthcoming and transparent with their treatment team who’s not with them
24/7 and needs to rely on them to report accurately and credibly on their
behavior and activities in the community.”
According to Dr. Lermond, Perez acted as though he “knew better” than
the treatment team and was not receptive to their feedback. Dr. Lermond
met with Perez due to “mounting concerns about [his] approach to treatment
and his lack of engagement, his lack of transparency, [and] his
deceptiveness.” The treatment team became aware that Perez had filed a
multitude of grievances with the licensing board. Dr. Lermond asked Perez
about the grievances and why he did not share his concerns with the team.
During the meeting, the treatment team talked through specific instances he
had complained of in the grievances. In one instance, Perez asked Levy for
clothing, but she forgot. When asked why he simply did not remind Levy,
Perez said he “ ‘shouldn’t have to [remind her], like she should just know.’ ”
In another instance, a busy staff member was handing out food and did not
give any to Perez, while he stood there and did not say anything. The team
tried to reframe Perez’s thinking so that instead of seeing it as the staff’s
acting with malicious intent or violating his rights, he could have advocated
for himself and been collaborative with the team.
6
Perez’s behavior improved after the first meeting, but a few weeks later
the treatment team had another meeting with Perez. After Perez requested
the book about starting a business and was staff splitting, Dr. Lermond
decided to meet with Perez to explain the team’s thinking in denying his
request and to show him that the team was aligned. During the meeting,
Dr. Lermond emphasized that Perez needed to focus on his treatment by
thinking about the thought distortions he experienced and how they
interfered with his relationship with the staff, and not on thinking about how
to start a business someday. Perez was “pretty adversarial” throughout the
discussion but eventually appeared to be on “the same page” as the treatment
team; Dr. Lermond, however, did not believe he had “internalized” the team’s
concerns.
Dr. Lermond and the treatment team met with Perez once more before
they transferred him to Golden Legacy, the higher-level treatment center.
Dr. Lermond explained that Perez would benefit from the new program
because there he could focus on addressing his thought distortions without
the distractions of the unlocked setting. Perez seemed to understand that the
team wanted to see him succeed and appreciated the team’s consideration of
his case.
Dr. Lermond testified that Perez had “every right to file a grievance”
but that the way he went about it signaled a “lack of trust” in his care team.
She insisted she “would never move someone to another level of care for a
grievance.” Dr. Lermond further described Perez’s “mounting frustration
with the treatment team,” which he saw as victimizing him. This was
particularly concerning given Perez’s history of violence and paranoia. She
said, “This is a man who sees us violating his rights and he’s a man who
takes matters into his own hands with violence in the past, so that was a
7
consideration.” Given Gateways’s lower level of security and being unlocked,
it was important that patients were “stable and working with [staff] and
collaborative,” so that staff could manage the risk the patients posed. With
that, Dr. Lermond opined that Perez’s “lack of amenability in treatment and
supervision render[ed] him not suitable” for outpatient treatment.
When asked on cross-examination for specific examples of Perez’s
deceptiveness, Dr. Lermond stated that in one instance the staff had found a
paper with Perez’s handwriting providing contact information so that his
peers could file complaints. When Perez was asked about it, he was “cagey”
and was “not . . . transparent about the details of what had happened.” In
another example, caught on camera, Perez was observed “passing items” to a
peer; when asked about it, he would not “give a straight answer.”
Dr. Lermond explained she could not think of more examples because she
was involved in Perez’s case on a macro level; she was more concerned with
the totality of the incidents and the appropriate course of action.
Dr. Lermond was aware that Perez filed five grievances. The
grievances, as well as his distorted view of his interactions with the staff,
suggested that Perez was experiencing low-grade paranoia. Dr. Lermond
testified that she had made a “cautious referral” to the less intense program.
Dr. Lermond explained that “even before [the treatment team] knew about
the grievances,” she “was thinking about a higher level of care and not
bringing [Perez] down. It was mounting for a while.” She further explained
that the eventual decision to move Perez to a higher level of care was based
on the “patterns” in his behavior, which “were not going to bode well for him
going forward and it was an opportunity to give him the chance to address
these things. This wasn’t punitive or reactionary” in response to the
grievances.
8
C. Brian Roy
Brian Roy, a mental health counselor in the forensic unit of Napa
County CONREP, was Perez’s clinician at Napa State Hospital; Roy also
participated in Perez’s outpatient treatment, acting as a liaison between the
county and Perez’s treatment team at Gateways. Roy communicated with
Perez throughout Perez’s time at Gateways; Roy would “try to reduce barriers
to treatment that [Perez] was expressing with dissatisfaction with his
primary clinician,” and to try to avoid staff splitting.
During a treatment team meeting, Roy addressed concerns that Perez
was staff splitting and needed to take the program more seriously. According
to Roy, “there had been ongoing issues with [Perez’s] wanting to shape
treatment; and if [Perez] felt like he was not getting the treatment that he
wanted, he would go around sometimes to [Roy] to kind of circumvent
treatment.” Since Perez seemed anxious to move to the lower-level program,
his treatment team set the expectation with him that he meaningfully engage
in treatment while he was still at Gateways. Although Perez seemed
receptive in his conversations, Roy described Perez’s responses as superficial
because he would respond well in the moment but then continually engage in
therapy-interfering behaviors.
Roy thought Perez’s outpatient status should be revoked because he
had “really struggled to engage in a meaningful way that would allow for a
graduation in treatment. And frankly, Gateways has communicated very
clearly that they do not feel that they could continue to contain his behaviors
in their program.” Because Perez could not be moved to a lower level and
was not being effectively contained and treated at Gateways, Roy stated
Perez should be placed in a higher-level facility, which would require
revoking his outpatient status. Perez had “really struggled with this
9
orientation to the world,” such that he would externalize any feelings of
discomfort.
Although Perez appeared to see the value in treatment, he seemed to
regard it as just another step toward ultimately being released. From the
time he began at Gateways, Perez looked at things like attending group
therapy as a matter of checking boxes; he seemed to focus on moving to the
next step even before he started treatment. Roy described it as “very
transactional in that sense and that really interfered with his ability to kind
of sit and tolerate the actual treatment that was being provided to him.”
Roy was concerned about Perez’s being sent to a lower level of
treatment due to his history of substance abuse and recent behavior. Roy
explained that although Perez’s behavior at Gateways was not overtly
dangerous or violent, it communicated to the staff, “ ‘You guys are kind of
failing me and I need to put you on notice [in] as dramatic [a way as] I can in
this setting.’ ” Perez had “a history in less controlled settings of becoming
very disregulated with drugs or alcohol in that same dynamic of ‘I feel like
I’ve been let down by the community and I need to display the full effect of
that failure in [a] very dramatic often dangerous fashion.’ ”
Roy was concerned that if Perez’s level of care were decreased, his risk
of relapse would increase. He explained that Perez’s externalizing his
problems, for example, by saying he was not being kept busy enough or being
provided the right things, “he becomes very helpless to stop a relapse. And
then kind of helpless again to curtail his behavior once he’s relapsed because
he’s been let down.” According to Roy, Perez had “lost sight of the impact” his
behavior had on himself and others, and Perez did not “show a behavioral
ability to kind of check that impulse, even though he’s getting a lot of
guidance from the program.”
10
D. Dolores Flores-Chavez
Dolores Flores-Chavez, the community program director for Napa
County CONREP, had worked with Perez for approximately two years. She
opined that Perez’s outpatient status should be revoked and he should return
to DSH. Her first concern was that Perez had multiple changes to his
diagnoses and it was still unclear what the proper diagnoses were, such as
schizoaffective disorder, mood disorder, or a personality disorder. At one
point Perez had been reported as having a schizoaffective disorder, but when
he left Napa State Hospital his diagnoses were substance-induced disorder
and multiple substance use disorder.
Flores-Chavez had some concerns that Perez had a personality
disorder. She explained that if Perez had a personality disorder, “the best
treatment . . . would be therapy intensive treatment in order for that person
to change their way of thinking, see the world in a different perspective.”
This type of treatment would not be available in CONREP but would be in
DSH. She added that Perez’s therapy-interfering behavior would require a
“very intensive therapy,” which could not be done at an outpatient facility
because the psychiatrists in those facilities could not do as “drastic changes
or evaluations about their diagnoses as [DSH].”
Flores-Chavez was concerned about Perez’s being in an outpatient
facility due to there being less supervision. The treatment team’s focus was
on managing Perez’s emotions and impulses, but if he were to access
substances, his behavior could escalate to more dangerous behaviors. In the
community environment, Perez would be exposed to more risk factors such as
access to a grocery store or liquor store. Due to his inability to engage in
treatment and practice healthy coping skills, Flores-Chavez was concerned
11
Perez would engage in unhealthy coping skills in the community because
“that’s what he’s comfortable with.”
E. Perez
Perez testified that his current diagnosis was “drug-induced substance
psychotic disorder” and that he was previously diagnosed with schizoaffective
disorder and antisocial personality disorder. Gateways was in a regular
neighborhood setting, where he had a lot of down time. He had been working
with Levy on internal issues, which he admitted was difficult for him. He
described how he lost several relatives, including his mother, while he was in
Napa State Hospital and coped with his loss by working and staying busy.
Instead of showing emotions, he believed “normal people in society” stayed
busy as a way to cope.
At Napa State Hospital, Perez was “celebrated” for working and staying
busy, as well as for advocating for others, instead of being emotional. When
he went to Gateways, Perez was encouraged to express his emotions;
however, he explained he did not feel sad or emotional and did not want to
fabricate his feelings. He was willing to work on things and wanted to “get
back [to] normal” as soon as possible. Perez enjoyed reading and access to a
library at Napa State Hospital; at Gateways, however, he could not have
access to the books he wanted. He went to several group activities at
Gateways because he liked to stay busy.
Perez explained that while he had his psychosis, he believed that he
was being “persecuted” by people. He believed he had telepathy and people
could hear his thoughts. He previously thought that he was “a victim of a
gang stalking” and that he was “implanted” with a chip. Perez described
Golden Legacy, the locked IMD facility he was sent to after Gateways, as a
12
“good facility.” At that facility, there was mandatory programming that kept
him busy all day. He also liked his peers and the staff at Golden Legacy.
IV. Trial Court Ruling
At the conclusion of the testimony and arguments from counsel, the
trial court revoked Perez’s outpatient status pursuant to section 1608.2 The
trial court understood that Perez wanted to “get out into the community and
start living a normal life,” and commended him for the efforts he had made so
far. However, the court stated that the four mental health professionals, who
were “very experienced in the area of forensic mental health,” unanimously
opined that Perez needed extended inpatient treatment “primarily because
[Perez was] engaging in treatment superficially.” Rather, Perez was
directing his efforts toward other people and external issues, “[a]nd his focus
on the external issues has been distracting him from dealing with the
internal issues, which again, he acknowledges he needs to work on.” The
court stated that if Perez did not learn to cope with his internal issues, he
would become a danger to the community if he were released.
The court also addressed the issue regarding Perez’s filing several
grievances with the licensing board. The court acknowledged that it had
some concerns about the timing of the recommendations and the filing of the
grievances. The court stated that after the treatment team learned of the
grievances “it is one conclusion that they then reversed their decision to let
him go to FACT because they were annoyed at his complaints. And I don’t
believe that was the motivation based on all of the testimony.” Rather, the
fact that the treatment team “learned of those complaints also added to their
2 The court determined the prosecution had not met its burden of
establishing revocation under section 1609 as it had not established by a
preponderance of the evidence that Perez was a danger to the health and
safety of others.
13
preexisting concerns that he was . . . superficially engaging in treatment and
not being honest with his treatment team and trying to work with them is
another example of him externalizing issues rather than engaging in the
treatment.” Therefore, the court found Perez required extended inpatient
treatment and granted the section 1608 petition revoking Perez’s outpatient
status.
DISCUSSION
I. State Hospital Commitment and Conditional Release to
Outpatient Status
Section 1026 provides that if the trier of fact “finds the defendant was
insane at the time of the offense, the trial court shall commit the defendant to
a state hospital or other appropriate public or private facility for the care and
treatment of the mentally disordered, or place the defendant on outpatient
status pursuant to section 1600 et seq. (§ 1026, subd. (a); [citations].)”
(People v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1431.) “Subsequent release
from a state hospital after an insanity commitment occurs upon
(1) restoration of sanity pursuant to section 1026.2, (2) expiration of the
maximum term of commitment under section 1026.5, or (3) approval of
outpatient status under section 1600 et seq.” (People v. Cross (2005) 127
Cal.App.4th 63, 72 (Cross).)
“[A] defendant may be placed on outpatient status upon the
recommendation of the state hospital director and the community program
director with the court’s approval after a hearing. (§ 1603; [citation].)”
(Cross, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 72.) “However, ‘ “[o]utpatient status is
not a privilege given the [offender] to finish out his [or her] sentence in a less
restricted setting; rather it is a discretionary form of treatment to be ordered
by the committing court only if the medical experts who plan and provide
treatment conclude that such treatment would benefit the [offender] and
14
cause no undue hazard to the community.” ’ ” (Ibid., 3d bracketed insertion
added.)
Once a person has been placed on outpatient status, that status may be
revoked under either section 1608 or section 1609. Section 1609 governs
revocation proceedings initiated by the prosecution based on concerns that an
individual “is a danger to the health and safety of others while on
[outpatient] status,” whereas section 1608 “requires a finding that the patient
needs extended inpatient treatment or refuses to accept further outpatient
treatment. It does not require the court to find that the patient is a danger to
the health and safety to others.” (People v. DeGuzman (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th
414, 420 (DeGuzman).)
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
In reviewing an order revoking outpatient status under section 1608,
we uphold the trial court’s factual findings if supported by substantial
evidence. (DeGuzman, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 420.) The prosecution
bears the burden of proof at a revocation of outpatient status hearing to
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the patient requires
extended inpatient treatment or refuses to accept further outpatient
treatment and supervision. (Id. at pp. 419–420.) We review the trial court’s
order regarding outpatient status for an abuse of discretion. (People v.
Bartsch (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 896, 900.) “Under that standard, it is not
sufficient to show facts affording an opportunity for a difference of opinion.
[Citation.] ‘[D]iscretion is abused only if the court exceeds the bounds of
reason, all of the circumstances being considered.’ ” (Cross, supra,
127 Cal.App.4th at p. 73.)
Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s decision to revoke
Perez’s outpatient status. Four witnesses, whom the trial court found
15
credible, unanimously agreed that Perez’s “treatment interfering behaviors”
hindered his progress in an outpatient setting. Although it is true, as Perez
notes, he was “never verbally or physically aggressive with staff,” this is not
relevant to a section 1608 revocation, which is concerned with whether the
patient needs extended inpatient treatment or refuses to accept further
outpatient treatment. (Cf. § 1609 [“prosecutor is of the opinion that the
person is a danger to the health and safety of others while on [outpatient]
status”].)
Perez contends “the sole evidence” on which the treatment team based
its opinions was due to the grievances he made about the facility. The record
belies this claim. The combined testimony of Perez’s treatment team
revealed: (1) he engaged in “splitting the staff,” by seeking to get more
favorable responses from different staff members; (2) he viewed his treatment
team as an “adversary”; (3) he ascribed malicious intent to actions of staff
members; (4) he paid lip service to therapy, basically telling the team what he
thought it wanted to hear while failing to address his underlying emotions;
(5) he believed he “knew better” than the treatment team and was not
receptive to its feedback; (6) when confronted with a note containing his
handwriting, he all but denied he wrote it; (7) he would not “give a straight
answer” about an incident captured on camera, in which he was seen giving
something to another patient; and (8) he externalized any feelings of
discomfort.
Moreover, the record reflects that the filing of the grievances was not
the issue. Rather, it was Perez’s failure to address his feelings about the
situations leading to the grievances—for example, not getting the things he
requested (clothing, book) or feeling disrespected (being the only one not to
16
get food at the barbecue). Instead of working on the underlying emotions,
Perez elected to externally direct his focus by filing the grievances.
As for the timing of the grievances vis-à-vis the revocation petition,
Dr. Lermond explained that even before she knew about Perez’s complaints,
she had reservations about transferring him to a lower level of care. She
described her decision to transfer him as a “cautious referral” based on
“mounting” concerns about Perez’s behaviors. Dr. Lermond testified that she
would never transfer a person’s level of care based on a grievance. She
further insisted the decision to transfer Perez to a higher level of care was not
a “punitive or reactionary” response to the grievances. The trial court found
this testimony to be credible. We will not second-guess this determination.
(People v. Brown (2014) 59 Cal.4th 86, 105–106 [“ ‘In reviewing a challenge to
the sufficiency of the evidence, . . . [w]e do not reweigh the evidence or
reevaluate a witness’s credibility’ ”].)
Finally, irrespective of Perez’s diagnosis,3 the record makes clear that
his current pattern of behavior—described as cagey, manipulative,
distrustful, adversarial, and superficially engaged—was not compatible with
the transparency and meaningful engagement required at Gateways.
Accordingly, we conclude substantial evidence supports the revocation
of Perez’s outpatient status under section 1608.
3 Although Perez asserts the concerns about him having a personality
disorder were speculative, the record amply supports the revocation based on
the evidence discussed herein; accordingly, we do not separately address this
argument.
17
DISPOSITION
The order revoking Perez’s outpatient status under section 1608 is
affirmed.
Jackson, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
Burns, J.
Chou, J.
A171114/People v. Dario Mundo Perez
18