P. v. Quinones
Filed 1/29/13 P. v. Quinones 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
SAMUEL QUINONES,
Defendant and
Appellant.
2d Crim. No.
B237473
(Super. Ct.
No. F463942)
(San
Luis Obispo County)
Samuel Quinones appeals
a judgment committing him to the
Health (CDMH) for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) (Pen.
Code, § 2962),
title="">[1]
following his conviction of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd.
(a)(1)).
We conclude, among other
things, that Quinones received 90 days of treatment for his disorder. (§ 2962, subd. (c).) We affirm.
FACTS
On August 15, 2011, Quinones filed a petition to
challenge a Board of Parole Hearings' determination that he met the
requirements for commitment as an MDO.
(§ 2962.) He waived a jury
trial.
Kevin Perry, a
psychologist at Atascadero State
Hospital, testified that Quinones
has a history of schizophrenia. Quinones has "persecutory delusions,"
hears voices, has "thought disorganization," paranoia, and
"psychomotor agitation." His
commitment offense involved assault with
a deadly weapon. He struck a man at
a bus stop with a metal rod and his mental disorder was an aggravating factor.
The prosecutor asked,
"[H]as Mr. Quinones been in treatment for his mental disorder for 90 days
or more in the year prior to his scheduled parole or release date?" Perry:
"In my opinion, no."
Quinones received 14 days of inpatient treatment. He also received outpatient services from the
Parole Outpatient Clinic (POC) for 169 days.
Perry said the CDMH has determined that parole outpatient clinic
services do not constitute treatment in determining the 90-day treatment
requirement. (§ 2962, subd. (c).)
Christopher Miller-Cole,
a POC forensic psychologist, testified that services available at POC are
equivalent to services provided within the state's correctional medical system.
Trayci Dahl, a CDMH
doctor and Quinones's expert, said parole outpatient treatment does "not
count" for determining the 90-day treatment requirement. The CDMH instructs its doctors "only to
look at days of treatment that are inpatient." Quinones did not receive 90 days of
treatment.
The trial court found
Quinones "received the requisite treatment." It said the CDMH policy of not considering
the POC outpatient services as "treatment" in its medical assessments
for MDO commitments was incorrect.
DISCUSSION
90
Days of Treatment
Quinones claims the
trial court erred by including his POC outpatient services as
"treatment" in determining the 90-day treatment requirement. We disagree.
The People must prove
"[t]he prisoner has been in treatment for the severe mental disorder for
90 days or more within the year prior to the prisoner's parole or
release." (§ 2962, subd. (c).)
Quinones contends that
in a prior decision we precluded the inclusion of POC outpatient
treatment. We disagree. In People
v. Del Valle (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 88, 93, we held that private outpatient
services could not be included within the 90-day treatment period. We also said, "It is consistent with the
statutory scheme that a prisoner must receive 90 days of inpatient treatment before he can qualify as an
MDO." (Italics added.) This language was overly broad dicta. In Del
Valle, we did not reach the issue
of whether POC outpatient treatment is included within the 90-day treatment
requirement. (Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 620 [language in appellate
decisions is not authority for issues that were never raised or decided].)
Our holding in
the issues here. POC treatment satisfies
the 90-day treatment criterion for an MDO commitment.
As we say in
that the 90-day treatment requirement can be satisfied by inpatient treatment
(i.e., treatment in prison or a custodial setting after the defendant is
sentenced to state prison on the commitment offense), or by POC treatment
providing DMH screened the prisoner and certified to the BPH that the prisoner
can be safely and effectively treated at the POC. Although mental health professionals may
disagree on whether POC treatment counts in satisfying the 90-day treatment
criteria, we take the MDO Act as we find it.
(People v. Achrem,
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.
Kamala D. Harris,
Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E.
Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle, Supervising Deputy
Attorney General, Eric J. Kohm, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All statutory references are to the Penal
Code.
