P. v. Townsend

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed
6/17/13  P. v. Townsend CA3

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

 

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  This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

 

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,                           Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   REBIO TOWNSEND,                           Defendant and Appellant.

C071855   (Super. Ct. No. 07F04974)

 

 

            In 2008, defendant pled no contest
to possession
of a destructive device (a Molotov cocktail) and admitted
previously being convicted of a strike offense and serving a term in
prison.  Consistent with his plea,
defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of two years and eight months in href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">state
prison.  

            Defendant’s custody was later
transferred from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
to the Department of Mental Health and in June 2011, the People petitioned to
extend defendant’s commitment as a mentally disordered offender pursuant to  ADDIN
BA xc <@st> xl 23 s FQPECT000002 l "Penal Code section 2970" Penal Code section 2970.  Those proceedings were continued until June
2012 when the People filed a second petition to extend defendant’s commitment
for an additional year. 

            In support of the People’s second
petition, they submitted the affidavit of Jeanne Garcia, M.D., medical director
at Atascadero State Hospital.  In Dr.
Garcia’s opinion, defendant “qualifies for continued treatment . . .
in that his severe mental disorder is not in remission and cannot be kept in
remission.”  Attached to Dr. Garcia’s
affidavit is a forensic report dated March 16, 2012, prepared by Brandi
Mathews, Ph.D. 

            To prepare her report, Dr. Mathews
reviewed defendant’s medical records and numerous legal documents.  Dr. Mathews also consulted with defendant’s
treating psychologist.  She intended to
interview defendant but “treatment staff indicated [defendant was exhibiting]
recent increased levels of agitation . . . .”  Thus, Dr. Mathews did not interview
defendant. 

            As noted by Dr. Mathews, defendant
was previously diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type.  Based on her review of defendant’s historical
information and current “presentation” at Atascadero, Dr. Mathews agreed with
that diagnosis. 

            In support of her opinion, Dr.
Mathews cataloged defendant’s “well-documented” history of psychiatric
treatment dating back to defendant’s first psychotic break in 1978.  She described defendant’s history of “both psychotic
and mood symptoms,” which include, among other symptoms:  auditory hallucinations, grandiosity,
decreased need for sleep, and paranoia. 
According to defendant’s medical records, the symptoms of his “severe
mental disorder are not controlled by medication and/or psychosocial
support.”  

            By reviewing defendant’s recent
progress notes at Atascadero, Dr. Mathews learned that defendant continued to
exhibit “significant mood symptoms.”  She
noted defendant continued to demonstrate paranoia and “mood lability.”  Other progress notes reported defendant
exhibiting “increased agitation” and irritability.  Defendant was further described in the
progress notes as “[using] loud speech, pacing the unit, and being intrusive
with others.”  Based on her review of defendant’s
records, and the reporting of defendant’s “overt symptoms,” Dr. Mathews
concluded that defendant’s “severe mental disorder” was not in remission, and
as a result of defendant’s severe mental disorder, he represented a
“substantial danger of physical harm to others.” 

            To support her conclusions, Dr.
Mathews outlined defendant’s history of violent and aggressive behavior.  Dr. Mathews also described three more recent
incidents where defendant’s aggression and agitation required him to be placed
in restraints and/or sequestered. 

            Dr. Mathews also indicated that
defendant “has limited insight into his severe mental disorder and the
importance of medications.”  Defendant
repeatedly refused his medications so was twice placed on an involuntary medication
order, and his attendance at his treatment group meetings was
“inconsistent.”  Defendant even told his
treating psychiatrist that he would not take his medications “ ‘on the
outside,’ ” because defendant believed “ ‘there [was] nothing wrong with [him].’
” 

            In addition to his continued mood
symptoms and violent conduct, Dr. Mathews noted defendant’s extensive history
with drug and alcohol abuse, as well as his lengthy criminal history (including
five felony convictions).  In Dr.
Mathews’s opinion, defendant met the criteria for extending his
commitment. 

            On August 10, 2012, a hearing
was held on the People’s petition.  The
People submitted the matter based on the documents filed with the court.  Defendant was invited to speak on his own
behalf but refused.  Based on the
petition filed by the People, the recommendation of Dr. Garcia, and Dr.
Mathews’s March 16, 2012 report, the court ordered defendant’s commitment
extended for one year, to November 8, 2013. 
Defendant appealed.

DISCUSSION

            Counsel for defendant filed an href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">opening
brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any
arguable issues on appeal.  (>People v.  ADDIN BA xc <@$cs> xl 27 s
FQPECT000001 xhfl Rep xpl 1 Wende  (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)  Defendant was advised by counsel of the right
to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the
opening brief.  We received two
supplemental briefs from defendant. 

            Defendant’s first supplemental brief
was filed on March 26, 2013, and included a request to relieve appointed
counsel.  On April 8, 2013, this
court denied defendant’s request to relieve appointed counsel. 

            Defendant raised several issues in
his supplemental brief regarding the process by which his commitment was
extended.  In addition to defendant’s
over-arching concern that people are telling lies about him, he contends it was
error for the court to rely on Dr. Mathews’s report because Dr. Mathews
never met defendant.  

            First, there is no evidence in the
record that anything included in the record is untrue, including the
information contained within Dr. Mathews’s report.  Second, as an expert, Dr. Mathews is
permitted to form her opinion regarding defendant’s mental state based on
information “made known to h[er] at or before the hearing, whether or not
admissible, that is of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert
in forming an opinion upon the subject to which h[er] testimony
relates . . . .”  ( ADDIN BA xc <@st> xl 28 s
FQPECT000003 xpl 1 l "Evid. Code, § 801, subd. (b)"
Evid. Code, § 801, subd. (b).)  Thus, Dr. Mathews was under no obligation to
interview defendant.  Moreover, she formed
her opinion regarding defendant’s mental status after reviewing treatment notes
and medical records prepared by defendant’s treatment providers, as well as
reports about defendant’s mental health prepared by other experts.  Such reliance was entirely permissible.  ( ADDIN BA xc <@$id> xl 5 s ID xpl
1 Ibid.)

            Defendant also contends he was
“unlawfully arrested.”  It is not
entirely clear from defendant’s supplemental brief to which arrest he is
referring; however, defendant’s most recent conviction was in 2008.  Thus, the time to raise issues regarding any
arrest that lead to any of his convictions has long since passed.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.308(a) [notice
of appeal must be filed within 60 days of judgment being entered].)

            Defendant filed a second
supplemental brief in this court on May 8, 2013.  The brief, which is four pages long and
handwritten, is primarily a description of defendant’s life.  At the end of his brief, however, defendant
again asks this court to relieve appointed counsel.  Defendant’s request is denied.

            Having undertaken an examination of
the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition
more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

            The judgment is affirmed.

 

 

 

                                                                                       ROBIE          , J.

 

 

 

We concur:

 

 

 

          RAYE           , P. J.

 

 

 

          HOCH           , J.