People v. Diego CA2/6

Filed 3/5/14 P. v. Diego CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B247140 (Super. Ct. No. F482312) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

WILLIAM DIEGO,

Defendant and Appellant.

William Diego appeals the order determining him to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO) and committing him to the Department of Mental Health (now State Department of State Hospitals) for treatment. (Pen. Code,1 § 2962 et seq.) Appellant contends the court violated his statutory right to a jury trial by allowing his attorney to waive the right over appellant's objection. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In January 2010, appellant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and was sentenced to three years in state prison. On November 7, 2012, the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) determined that appellant met the criteria for MDO treatment and sustained the requirement of treatment as a condition of his parole.

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Appellant petitioned for a hearing pursuant to section 2966, subdivision (b), and counsel was appointed to represent him. Over appellant's objection, his attorney waived his right to a jury trial. Dr. Brandi Mathews, a forensic psychologist, testified at appellant's commitment trial. After interviewing appellant, reviewing his medical records from Atascadero State Hospital (ASH), and consulting with his treating psychologist, Dr. Mathews opined that appellant met the criteria for MDO treatment. Appellant suffers from schizophrenia and has a history of delusions, paranoia, auditory hallucinations, and disorganized thoughts. He has frequently been observed talking and laughing to himself, and believes that people are out to get him. Appellant's mental disorder predates his commitment offense of assault with a deadly weapon, and was a factor in his commission of that offense. The facts of the offense indicate that appellant stabbed and threatened to kill the manager of the hotel where appellant was staying after the manager asked him to leave the premises. At the time of the BPH hearing appellant was still suffering from his mental illness and was not in remission. When Dr. Mathews interviewed appellant less than a week prior to the hearing, he exhibited an increase in his paranoia and became delusional. Appellant's records reflected that he had received over 90 days of treatment in the year preceding the hearing. Dr. Mathews also testified that appellant had not voluntarily followed his treatment plan and refused to take his medication as prescribed. The doctor opined that appellant presented a substantial risk of physical harm to others by reason of his mental disorder, into which he has limited insight. Appellant testified in his own behalf. He said he had been following his treatment plan and attending group therapy, and would continue treatment if released from custody. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that the MDO criteria had been met. Accordingly, the court denied appellant's petition and ordered him committed for further treatment.