People v. Caridad CA3

Filed 11/22/13 P. v. Caridad CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C070479

v. (Super. Ct. No. 00F09254)

BENJAMIN CARIDAD,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Benjamin Caridad appeals from his most recent recommitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) to the custody of the Department of Mental Health (Pen. Code, § 2970) from June 7, 2012, to June 7, 2013. He contends insufficient evidence supports the finding that he currently represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. We conclude sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s implied finding of defendant’s current dangerousness and his recommitment. We affirm the judgment.

1

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant began receiving psychiatric care at the age of 20 years and had been hospitalized 11 times under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150.1 He also had a long history of substance abuse. In November 2000, the 32-year-old defendant intentionally set fire to an inhabited motel located on Stockton Boulevard. Defendant admitted he had been prescribed anti- psychotic medications but did not always take them. At the time of the offense, he had not taken any medication for a month. In June 2001, defendant entered a plea of no contest to arson and was sentenced to state prison for six years. During his term in state prison, defendant had been in a crisis bed twice. In 2006, after undergoing a psychological evaluation by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, defendant was diagnosed with a psychotic disorder not otherwise specified (NOS) and polysubstance dependence, with symptoms and behaviors including “auditory hallucinations, paranoid and delusional thinking, suspiciousness, isolation, depression, odd presentation, loose associations, [and] disorganized thoughts and respon[ses] to internal stimuli.” This diagnosis fell within the statutory definition of severe mental disorder. As a result of this diagnosis, defendant was determined to be an MDO and ordered to undergo treatment as a condition of parole. Before defendant’s parole was set to expire in 2009, the District Attorney filed a petition for commitment as an MDO pursuant to Penal Code section 2970. The community program director in charge of defendant’s outpatient program advised that his