People v. Khademi CA3

Filed 9/20/24 P. v. Khademi CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099518

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62192738)

v.

DAVOOD KHADEMI,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Davood Khademi appeals from the trial court’s order permitting the Department of State Hospitals to administer antipsychotic medication to him as needed, including involuntarily. He contends that the specific statutory provision on which the court relied, Penal Code section 1370, subdivision (a)(2)(B)(i)(III), did not authorize the order because the evaluating psychiatrist opined that he lacked the capacity to make

1

decisions regarding antipsychotic medication.1 We disagree with Khademi’s interpretation of the statute and therefore affirm the order. BACKGROUND The People charged Khademi with aggravated battery by gassing on a peace officer (§ 243.9, subd. (a)). At a bail hearing, defense counsel declared a doubt as to Khademi’s competence to stand trial. The court held a hearing, considered a report prepared by a licensed psychologist, and determined that Khademi was incompetent to stand trial. The trial court then held a separate hearing to determine Khademi’s placement. The Placer County Adult System of Care recommended that he “be placed in a Jail Based Competency Treatment or the Department of State Hospital[s] for restoration of competency” because “[h]e has proven that he is unable to cooperate with treatment and rules even while in the most secure setting of jail custody.” The court ordered Khademi committed to the Department of State Hospitals. At the request of defense counsel, the court set a further hearing to determine whether to order involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication. At the next hearing, the trial court considered the reports of two psychologists as well as a memorandum from the Placer County Adult System of Care, which attached the conclusions of an evaluating psychiatrist. The evaluating psychiatrist opined that: (1) psychiatric medications were appropriate to treat Khademi’s mental health symptoms; (2) medication was necessary to restore him to competency; (3) Khademi lacked the capacity to make decisions regarding psychiatric medication; (4) side effects of the proposed medication would not interfere with his competency; and (5) no alternative or less intrusive treatments were likely to have substantially the same results as medication.