People v. Watts CA6

Filed 4/29/14 P. v. Watts CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H040019 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 78100)

v.

ANDREW BRIAN WATTS,

Defendant and Appellant.

On December 15, 1980, appellant Andrew Brian Watts went into a psychotic rage at his parents’ home and strangled his father to death. He did not believe his father was dead, so to slow his father down, he cut off his legs with a knife and a machete and poured sugar on his body, believing it was cyanide. Later he stole his father’s van and drove to Salt Lake City, Utah. He was arrested in Utah on December 18, 1980. Appellant has always maintained that the person he murdered was not his father, but a duplicate of his father. Appellant was found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to the state hospital system. He was diagnosed with Schizophrenia, paranoid type, and polysubstance dependence. Appellant has been in and out of the state hospital system and the community release program since that time.1 1 The factual recitation here is limited to the facts necessary to dispose of this appeal pursuant to People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano). On the Court’s own motion, we take judicial notice of People v. Watts, (Aug. 29, 2013, H038825)

On April 17, 2013, the District Attorney of Santa Clara County filed a petition seeking to extend appellant’s commitment for an additional two years pursuant to Penal Code sections 1026 and 1026.5. Appellant’s jury trial began on July 30, 2013. At trial, three treating physicians, both past and present, testified for the prosecution. All three opined that because of appellant’s persistent, severe delusions and his inability to recognize his mental illness or control his behavior, there was a substantial risk that, if released, he would pose a danger to the community. On July 31, 2013, the jury returned a verdict, finding the petition to be true. Thereafter, the court ordered appellant committed for two years, ending August 30, 2015. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from this order. On appeal, we appointed counsel to represent appellant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 501. Despite acknowledging Serrano’s apparent application, counsel attempts to distinguish Serrano on its facts. While the Serrano appeal followed an order on a collateral post- judgment motion in a criminal case, the instant appeal follows an order of recommitment under Penal Code sections 1026 and 1026.5. As we made clear in Serrano, the Supreme Court has, on multiple occasions, limited the availability of Wende2 review. (Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 501; see also Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 543-544 [no Wende review in conservatorship cases]; In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 [no Wende review in dependency cases].) In Serrano, we relied on the California Supreme Court’s holding in Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th 529 to hold that Wende