People v. Miesegaes CA1/1

Filed 9/11/14 P. v. Miesegaes CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A140971 v. VADIM STANLEY MIESEGAES, (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No. SCN179153) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Vadim Miesegaes appeals from an order denying his petition for conditional release into the community for supervised outpatient treatment pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.2.1 Appointed counsel has filed a brief indicating he has reviewed the record and found “no arguable issues to be pursued on appeal.” (Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 544.) The brief provides a narrative of the facts relevant to the pertinent legal issues. Counsel provided defendant with a copy of this brief and informed him of the right to file a supplemental brief. Defendant has done so. Having reviewed the record, we affirm the order of the trial court. DISCUSSION We recite only the facts pertinent to the order on appeal. In September 2002, following a bench trial, the trial court found defendant not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. (§ 1026.) In November, the court ordered defendant committed to the state hospital for a maximum term of 25 years to life (§ 1026.5, subd. (a)).

1 All further references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 1

Defendant is a resident alien subject to deportation based on his criminal history, and is subject to an “ICE”2 hold. In May 2013, defense counsel made efforts to have defendant returned to his native country, Switzerland. The trial court ordered Atascadero State Hospital to prepare a recommendation for defendant’s readiness for outpatient treatment in the community. Dr. Henry Hans Bjorn Ahlstrom and defendant testified at a contested hearing on October 23, 2013. Dr. Ahlstrom is a clinical psychologist and a member of defendant’s treatment team. He used eight psychological tests to prepare an assessment of defendant. He concluded defendant does not have an ongoing psychotic disorder, but is suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder, attention deficit disorder, amphetamine induced psychotic disorder in full sustained remission, amphetamine dependence, opiate dependence, alcohol abuse, cannabis abuse, hallucinogen abuse, and personality disorder not otherwise specified with antisocial and obsessive compulsive traits (an Axis II diagnosis). Dr. Ahlstrom disagreed with a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder by Dr. Dean, believing defendant’s behaviors are the result of years of drug abuse. (Dr. Ahlstrom also disagreed with other diagnoses of psychoses made over the years by providers.3) In his opinion, defendant has a lesser personality disorder, but acknowledged it includes antisocial traits and he does not work well with people. His antisocial conduct is not readily redirectable, and his manner with staff is irritating, although in one on one interactions (which rarely occur given patient and staffing numbers), defendant can understand the other person’s point of view. The prior year, during 2012, defendant “had a really tough time,” and different providers “saw different things.” Dr. Ahlstrom saw him “as being agitated”; defendant’s psychiatrist had a “PRN of Haldol for agitation/paranoia,” which ultimately was not administered. In fact, in recent years, defendant has had very little medication administered.