People v. Rosalinda C. CA1/1

Filed 8/22/14 P. v. Rosalinda C. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A140749 v. ROSALINDA C., (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RM08378235) Defendant and Appellant.

Rosalinda C. has been committed as a developmentally disabled person who is a danger to herself or others under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 6500 since 2008 through an initial commitment when she was 18 years old and repeated recommitments, most recently on January 9, 2014, recommitting her until November 15, 2014. Her attorney on appeal has filed a brief raising no specific issues, asking us to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.). Although Wende review is not mandated, our discretionary review of the record reveals no meritorious issues for briefing. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The latest petition for recommitment was filed November 6, 2013. On November 7, Rosalinda was ordered temporarily detained at California Psychiatric

1 All statutory references, unless otherwise indicated, are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

Transitions (CPT) pending a hearing. Evidence was heard January 8 and 9, 2014, after which the court granted the petition. The immediately prior recommitment was reviewed by us in a partially published opinion (People v. Rosalinda C. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1). That opinion addressed, in the unpublished portion, issues related to insufficiency of the evidence to support the recommitment. The evidence in the present appeal was similar to that in the prior recommitment. Dr. Scott Turpin, a psychiatrist with CPT and Rosalinda’s attending psychiatrist, testified by stipulation as an expert. He opined that Rosalina is in need of continued conservatorship. He diagnosed her with (1) “mental retardation, mild,” (2) “pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified” (which in the new DSM-V is called “autism spectrum disorder”), (3) “schizophrenia . . . multiple episode,” and (4) “obsessive-compulsive disorder.”2 Turpin defined mental retardation, mild, as “cognitive limitations or thinking limitations” generally associated with some IQ scored in the past under 70, as well as “difficulties in daily adaptive functioning.” Turpin had observed symptoms of the diagnosis in Rosalinda: “Things that I would say are associated with that diagnosis would be sort of limited coping or social skills, poor impulse control, . . . a sort of limited flexibility in approaching problems.” Poor impulse control means “[b]asically a difficulty in curbing things like impulsive aggression: striking out at other people, jumping to an action without maybe being able to step back and consider some more socially appropriate alternatives.” The “autism spectrum disorder” diagnosis basically refers to “difficulties with communication or social interaction,” difficulties “understanding social interactions or emotional [cues] from other people,” “maladaptive behavior,” “poor coping skills,” and “repetitive stereotyped behavior.” Rosalinda had exhibited symptoms such as problems in establishing relationships, maintaining friendships, and getting along with others. One