P. v.
Meredith
Filed
4/22/13 P. v. Meredith 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
AARON MEREDITH,
Defendant and
Appellant.
2d Crim. No.
B244503
(Super. Ct.
No. F476520)
(San
Luis Obispo County)
Aaron
Meredith appeals from an order committing him to the State Department of State
Hospitals (formerly Department of Mental Health) for treatment as a
disordered offender (MDO).
(Pen. Code, § 2960 et seq.)
Appellant claims that the evidence does not support the finding that he
received 90 days of treatment within a year of his parole or release date (§
2962, subd. (c)) and asserts that the MDO certification was not timely (§ 2962,
subd. (d)(1)). We affirm.
Procedural
History
Appellant suffers from a severe mental disorder,
schizophrenia, paranoid type, manifested by delusional beliefs, paranoia,
auditory hallucinations, and psychomotor agitation. In 2010 he was sentenced to
met all the MDO criteria, that the mental disorder was not in remission, and
appellant posed a substantial danger to the community.
90 Days Treatment
Doctor
Perry was asked whether appellant received the requisite 90 days of treatment
before the Board of Parole Hearing. (§
2962, subd. (c).) Over defense
objection, Doctor Perry answered "Yes." Appellant argues a "Yes" answer is
hearsay. However, the question did not
ask for a hearsay response. (Evid.
Code, § 1200, subd. (a); see e.g., People v. Collins (2010) 49 Cal.4th
175, 214 [questions calling for "yes" or "no" answer are
not leading unless unduly suggestive under the circumstances].) Doctor Perry also stated that appellant was
not following the treatment plan which precludes appellant from arguing that
the 90-day treatment element was not established. (People v. Kirkland (1994) 24
Cal.App.4th 891, 908-909.)
Citing dicta in People
v. Baker (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1234 (Baker), appellant argues
that a mental health expert cannot render an opinion in a MDO proceeding based
on medical records alone. We rejected a
similar argument in People v. Stevens (Feb. 27, 2013, B241356) __ Cal.App.4th __
[2013 DJDAR 2558] on the ground that medical records are reliable and
commonly relied upon by mental health professionals in evaluating and treating
patients.
their opinions because it is not offered for the truth of the facts stated but
merely as the basis for the expert's opinion.
(People v. Cooper (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 731, 747.) Doctor Perry interviewed appellant, reviewed
the nursing and hospital progress notes, reviewed appellant's medical records
and legal history, and spoke to nurses and psychiatric technicians involved in
appellant's care. Doctor Perry's
testimony was corroborated by the MDO certification signed by a chief
psychiatrist for the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation and two MDO evaluation reports that appellant
received more than 90 days of treatment.
Substantial evidence supports the finding that appellant received the
requisite 90 days of treatment. (§ 2962,
subd. (c).)
MDO Certification Date
Section
2962, subdivision (d)(1) provides that the MDO certification by the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) must be occur "[p]rior
to [the prisoner's] release on parole."
CDCR certified appellant as an MDO on May 21, 2012, which was
appellant's parole release date.
Appellant argues that that the MDO certification must occur no later
than the day preceding a prisoner's scheduled release date. If that was what the Legislature intended, it
would have said so. (See e.g., People
v. Williams (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 436, 452
["when the Legislature intends to prescribe a . . . deadline . . .
, it does so expressly and not by implication"]; Ramos v. Superior
Court (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 719, 727.)
In Blakely v.
Superior Court (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1445), defendant's parole release
date was September 3, 2008 but defendant was not certified as an MDO until a
week later on September 10, 2008. The
Court of Appeal held that section 2962 subdivision (d)(1) set a mandatory
deadline for the MDO certification. (
the prisoner's 'status as a parolee cannot be questioned. Upon expiration of his determinate prison
term, he had no status other than parolee.'
[Citation.]" (
emphasis added.)
Unlike Blakely,
appellant was certified on or before his scheduled parole date and was never
released from custody. The trial court
correctly found that the MDO certification was timely. (§
2962, subd. (d)(1); seeCal. Code Regs tit. 15, § 3075.2, subd. (a)
["Inmates shall not be retained beyond their charge date.].)
The judgment (MDO commitment order) is affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN,
J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.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.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] Overruling appellant's Baker
objection, the trial court
ruled: "I can't imagine someone
being in a better position than a person with psychological or psychiatric
training, such as in this case Dr. Perry, who would be able to look at records
or reports about records and discern whether or not certain treatment was indeed
exactly for the severe mental disorder."
