P. v. King
Filed 9/6/12 P. v. King 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
THOMAS KING,
Defendant and
Appellant.
2d Crim. No.
B238940
(Super. Ct.
No. F465204)
(San
Luis Obispo County)
Thomas King appeals from
an order denying his petition for a review of the determination of the Board of
Prison Terms that he meets the criteria as a
FACTS
Underlying
Offense
King was seen pacing
back and forth when the victim came by with a bicycle. King punched the victim in the face and
attempted to steal the bicycle. A
struggle ensued in which punches were exchanged. The victim was able to escape with his
bicycle. King then walked up to a woman
who was feeding her baby. He punched the
woman in the stomach and
walked away.
Doctor Phylissa
Kwartner, a forensic psychologist, testified that King suffers from
type. He has been in treatment since he
was 18 years old. In Kwartner's opinion,
the offense was caused or aggravated by King's mental disorder. Kwartner formed this opinion based on the
unprovoked nature of the attack on the female victim, King's history of mental
illness, that his pacing at the time of the offense was a symptom of that
illness, and that King told an evaluator that his psychotropic medication was
not effective. In Kwartner's opinion,
King is not in remission and remains a substantial danger of physical harm to
others by reason of his mental
illness.
Defense
According to
Psychologist Gary Goldberg, King does not suffer from schizophrenia. Instead, he suffers from antisocial
personality disorder. Goldberg did not
believe the underlying offense was caused by a mental disorder. King wanted the bicycle and probably punched
the woman out of frustration because he did not get it.
DISCUSSION
King's counsel has
declared that he has been unable to find any arguable issues for briefing. (People
v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304; People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
King has submitted a
persona. King appears to argue that a
psychologist is not competent to testify that his criminal offense was caused
or aggravated by his mental disorder.
Instead, King claims the only admissible evidence on the issue is the
court record of the underlying conviction and sentencing. King cites no relevant authority to support
his argument.
Dr. Kwartner's testimony
states the basis for her conclusion that King's offense was caused or
aggravated by his mental disorder. The
trial court found her testimony credible.
We have no power on appeal to judge the credibility of a witness. (People
v. Stewart (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 785, 790.)
Our review of the record
discloses no arguable issues. We affirm.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
GILBERT,
P.J.
We concur:
YEGAN, J.
PERREN, J.
Jacquelyn
H. Duffy, Judge
Superior
Court County
of San Luis Obispo
______________________________
Thomas King, in pro.
per., and 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, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
