People v. Moore CA5

California Court of Appeal Dec 16, 2014 No. F067351Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed an order for the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication, finding sufficient evidence that the appellant lacked the capacity to refuse treatment due to his inability to acknowledge his mental illness or evaluate the risks and benefits of medication.

Issues

Whether the superior court had jurisdiction to issue an involuntary medication order.
Whether the evidence supported the finding that the appellant lacked the capacity to refuse treatment.
Whether the appellant's constitutional right to be heard was violated during the hearing.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“An involuntarily committed patient may be forcibly treated with antipsychotic medication if a court has determined that he is not competent to refuse treatment.”

Filed 12/16/14 P. v. Moore CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F067351 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Fresno Super. Ct. v. No. 13CRAD681347)

ARDELL MOORE, JR., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Armando O. Rodriguez, Judge.† Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Franson, J. † Retired Judge of the Superior Court of Fresno County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

-ooOoo- INTRODUCTION Appellant/defendant Ardell Moore, Jr. appeals from an order requiring him to submit to involuntary administration of psychotropic medication. On appeal, his appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) In addition, appellant has requested this court review certain issues. After conducting such a review, we affirm. FACTS As of 2013, appellant was 55 years old. He was committed to Coalinga State Hospital as a sexually violent predator (SVP) in 2006 and has remained committed since that time.1 On March 21, 2013, petitioner Department of State Hospitals (DSH) filed a petition in the Superior Court of Fresno County for an order to compel involuntary treatment with psychotropic medication on appellant, pursuant to In re Calhoun (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1315 (Calhoun). On May 16, 2013, the superior court conducted a hearing on the petition. Dr. Emmanuel Fantone, a board certified psychiatrist, was the only witness at the hearing. He had been appellant’s treating psychiatrist since December 2012 and testified extensively about defendant’s criminal record and mental health history.

1 In Moore v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 802, appellant challenged the SVP finding, and claimed his mental illnesses left him incompetent to participate in the SVP hearing. (Id. at pp. 812–814.) The Supreme Court rejected this argument and held “due process does not require mental competence on the part of someone undergoing a commitment or recommitment trial under the SVPA. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 829.)

People v. Moore CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief