People v. Reynolds CA1/5

Filed 10/15/13 P. v. Reynolds CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A137792 v. JAMES D. REYNOLDS, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR-616010) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant James D. Reynolds entered pleas of no contest to a felony violation of Penal Code section 646.9,subdivision (a),1 stalking, and to a misdemeanor violation of section 148, subdivision (a)(1), resisting, delaying or obstructing a police officer. Reynolds was sentenced to the upper term of three years in state prison on the felony charge, with a concurrent term of one year in county jail on the misdemeanor. At the time of sentencing, the court “strongly encourage[d] the Department of Corrections [and Rehabilitation] to immediately assess Mr. Reynolds for mental health treatment within the prison system” and to assess Reynolds’s qualification as a mentally disordered offender (MDO).2 Reynolds contends the court’s statement reflects that the “primary reason” for the prison sentence was to make him eligible for MDO status, and that the trial court abused

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 The MDO law mandates treatment for prison inmates with severe mental disorders who meet certain specified criteria (see § 2962) and can result in involuntary civil commitments for treatment beyond the term of imprisonment (§§ 2970, 2972).

1

its sentencing discretion in “use of the hope [Reynolds] would be found an MDO to deny probation and send [him] to prison.” We disagree with Reynolds’s characterization of the trial court record and find no abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm. I. BACKGROUND Reynolds does not challenge his conviction. We therefore address the underlying facts of the offenses only as they are relevant to the court’s sentencing choices. On March 11, 2012, Sonoma County Sheriff’s deputies were called when Reynolds threatened to kill his former employer, J.F. When the deputies arrived, Reynolds had a large knife sticking out of his back pocket, and was making threats to kill J.F. Reynolds refused the deputies’ orders to lie on the ground and pulled out the knife, waived it in the air, and continued his threats. Reynolds tossed the knife in the direction of one of the officers and was taken into custody. Reynolds, who was known to the deputies as an extreme alcoholic, had no odor of alcohol about him at the time, but appeared delusional. Reynolds accused the officers of being in a conspiracy with Satan, accused the victim of molesting his daughter, and talked about invisible people standing next to the deputy and hiding in trees. Reynolds had previously threatened J.F.’s life in October 2011. A mental health hold under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150 was placed on Reynolds. On March 17, 2012, Reynolds told J.F.’s girlfriend that he was going to go to J.F.’s house and kill J.F. When a sheriff’s deputy went to Reynolds’s home, Reynolds had been drinking, a violation of the terms of his probation on another matter. Reynolds denied threatening J.F., but said that J.F. was a child molester who was stealing energy from the ground and God, and that J.F. had stolen Reynolds’s 62 children. When arrested for the probation violation, Reynolds told the deputy that the next time he was arrested, it would be for killing J.F. Reynolds was interviewed while in custody about the allegations that his daughter had been sexually molested. The interviewing officer said that Reynolds appeared “fixated” on J.F., that Reynolds’s thoughts were disorganized and “[h]is behavior was . . . alarming.”