People v. Woodward CA2/6

Filed 10/16/14 P. v. Woodward 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B254986 (Super. Ct. No. 14PT-00038) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

DAVID WOODWARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

David Woodward appeals from the judgment, after a court trial, finding that he is a mentally disordered offender (MDO) within the meaning of Penal Code section 29621 and recommitting him to the California Department of Mental Health for treatment. Prior to trial, the Board of Prison Hearings (BPH) held two hearings to review appellant's MDO status. At the first hearing, the BPH deputy commissioner who conducted the hearing found that appellant did not meet the MDO criteria. The Chief Deputy Commissioner of the BPH rescinded that finding and ordered a second annual review hearing. At that hearing, the BPH found appellant was an MDO. Appellant contends the BPH lacked authority to hold the second hearing. The trial court found appellant met the MDO criteria at the time of the second hearing and ordered him committed for further treatment. We affirm.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 1

Facts In December 2009, appellant was convicted of resisting an executive officer with force or violence (§ 69) after a physical confrontation with a woman from whom he had previously rented a room. In 2011, appellant was convicted of setting fire to an inhabited structure. (§ 452, subd. (b).) He was transferred to Atascadero State Hospital in November 2012, as a mentally ill inmate and initially certified as an MDO two days later. (§§ 2684, 2962.) Kevin Perry, Ph. D., a forensic psychologist, conducted appellant's annual MDO evaluation in November 2013. Although he concluded that appellant suffers from the severe mental disorder of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, Perry also opined that appellant's symptoms are controlled by medication and can be kept in remission without treatment. He further opined appellant did not represent a substantial danger of physical harm to others by reason of his mental illness. Perry's opinions were based on a clinical interview with appellant and on his review of appellant's Department of Corrections record and the hospital progress notes relating to appellant's treatment. During the interview, appellant presented with logical, linear thought processes. His mood, behavior and speech were appropriate to the situation. Appellant did not express any delusional ideas or other exhibit manic, paranoid or psychotic symptoms. Appellant's hospital records indicated he had not had a manic episode for more than six months. Although he experienced some auditory hallucinations in mid-September, these symptoms appeared to have resolved by the time of the evaluation. In addition, appellant had not been violent or threatening during the past year. He attended most of his scheduled group therapy sessions and took his medications as prescribed. Appellant had engaged in some bizarre and violent behavior prior to his hospitalization, including one incident in prison during which he managed to pepper spray corrections officers during a cell extraction. In June 2012, appellant was placed in a mental health cell block. At that time, he was engaging in disorganized behaviors "including standing naked in his cell and drinking water out of his toilet and off of the