People v. Sargsyan CA6

Filed 10/18/13 P. v. Sargsyan CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H039261 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1233596)

v.

HAYK SARGSYAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Hayk Sargsyan appeals from an order authorizing involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication to him. (Pen. Code, § 1370, subd. (a)(2).) 1 He contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that he lacked the capacity to consent to this treatment. We find no error and affirm.

I. Statement of the Case On May 31, 2012, a felony complaint charged defendant with vandalism (§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)). About a week later, there were concerns about defendant’s mental competency and criminal proceedings were suspended. (§ 1368.) In September 2012, the trial court found that defendant was incompetent to stand trial based on a psychological evaluation.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

After an evidentiary hearing on December 5, 2012, the trial court found that defendant did not have the capacity to consent to treatment with antipsychotic medication, committed him to the Department of State Hospitals, and authorized involuntary medication with antipsychotic drugs. Defendant has filed a timely notice of appeal.

II. Statement of Facts On May 29, 2012, defendant threw a chair through the window that separated the staff work area from the assembly room at the Barbara Aaron’s Psychiatric Facility. Defendant told the arresting officer that he was “pissed off” about an attendant’s behavior.

III. Discussion Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that he did not have the capacity to consent to treatment with antipsychotic medications. A. Background After concerns were raised about defendant’s competency in June 2012, the trial court suspended criminal proceedings and appointed Dr. Rudolph Cook, a psychologist, to evaluate defendant pursuant to section 1369, subdivision (a). Dr. Cook reviewed defendant’s medical records. Defendant had a history of substance abuse and had been diagnosed with psychosis, not otherwise specified. A progress note, dated June 7, 2012, stated that defendant had been prescribed Depakote, Zyprexa, Thorazine, and Propanol, but he was refusing some of these medications “at times.” The note also gave a description of defendant as “[u]ncooperative, unpredictable, not much interaction . . . [g]rossly disabled, unable to provide his own food, shelter and clothing.” A week later, a progress note stated that defendant was “unresponsive, preoccupied with internal 2