People v. Todd CA5

Filed 1/8/26 P. v. Todd CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F088741 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MI003718-00) v.

JOSEPH TODD, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Stephanie Renee Childers Stewart, Judge. Linda J. Zachritz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Franson, J. and Meehan, J.

Appointed counsel for appellant, Joseph Todd, asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the relevant facts of this case. Appellant was advised of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from appellant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to appellant, we affirm the judgment. The following is a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) In June 2024, the People filed a petition for commitment of a person with a developmental disability under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6500. The petition alleged appellant is a developmentally disabled person who was dangerous to themselves or others, that the disability was a substantial factor in causing them to have serious difficulties in controlling their dangerous behavior, and that there were no suitable alternatives to judicial commitment. The declaration to the petition noted appellant was previously committed and had resided in his current facility since at least 2008. At the People’s request, August 20, 2024, to August 22, 2024, the trial court held a jury trial on the petition. Appellant and Dr. Michael Musacco were called by the People to provide substantive testimony. In motions in limine rulings, the trial court allowed entry of appellant’s mental health records and certain unsealed portions of his criminal record. Appellant was represented by counsel during these proceedings. Appellant testified he had lived at the Porterville Developmental Center until 2008, when he moved into his current facility, and described his daily routine and medicines. Appellant admitted to having an intellectual disability, described its effect on