P. v. Awad

Filed 1/14/08 P. v. Awad CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

Defendant appeals from an order revoking his outpatient status pursuant to Penal Code section 1608.[1] His counsel has filed an opening brief that raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. We affirm.

I.

In January 2006, defendant was found not guilty by reason of insanity of assault with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1)) arising from an incident where he attempted to commit suicide, and seriously injured a bystander, by driving his car into a gas pump and other vehicles at a gas station. In February 2006, defendant was committed to Napa State Hospital for a period of up to four years, and he was released on outpatient status in January 2007. In August 2007, defendant was arrested for driving under the influence, and the Napa Conditional Release Program (CONREP) requested that his outpatient status be revoked.

At the section 1608 hearing, CONREP worker Bruce Killen testified that he had supervised defendant while defendant was an outpatient, and opined that defendant needed extended inpatient treatment. Killen said that defendant had had violent altercations with his girlfriend and family members, and had manifested a lot of really significant risk factors for violence, including alcohol use, deception, marked impulsivity, and numerous violations of the terms and conditions of his release. Killen noted that defendant had gotten himself in trouble again [d]espite really intensive monitoring and adding more intense terms and conditions to try to monitor him and contain him in the community.

As for the circumstances of the recent arrest, Killen said that defendant told him that he drank heavily on the night of August 10, 2007, drove to Reno, got no sleep, and was driving back to the Bay Area on August 11 when he got into an accident. Defendant wasnt really sure what happened, he just sort of realized all of [a] sudden that the airbags had gone off and people were crying and he was crying and an accident had occurred. Killen had told defendant over and over again over a number of weeks that we were seeing so many risk factors that something was going to happen if he didnt change his behavior . . . and that something finally happened.

Killen stated on cross examination that defendant had been diagnosed as suffering from amphetamine induced psychosis and polysubstance abuse, and said that he was unaware of any continued methamphetamine use on defendants part.

Defendant testified and admitted drinking alcohol during his outpatient release and going to Reno without permission. Defendant pledged to never drink alcohol again, and asked for one more chance into the community.

The court revoked defendants outpatient status at the conclusion of the hearing.

II.

We have reviewed the record, and find no arguable issues.

Defendant was represented by counsel, and there was a sufficient showing for the court to find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendants outpatient status should be revoked (see People v. DeGuzman (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 414, 419-420).

III.

The order revoking defendants outpatient status is affirmed.

_________________________

Marchiano, P. J.

We concur:

_________________________

Stein, J.

_________________________

Margulies, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.

[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.