People v. Edwards CA2/6

Filed 12/19/14 P. v. Edwards CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B257115 (Super. Ct. No. 14PT-00063) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

BRIAN NELSON EDWARDS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Brian Nelson Edwards appeals the trial court's order continuing his involuntary treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) (Pen. Code,1 § 2970). Appellant was previously committed for MDO treatment after he was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). Before appellant's previous commitment expired, the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney petitioned for his continued MDO treatment. Appellant waived his right to a jury trial. Dr. Robbin Huff-Musgrove, appellant's treating psychologist at Patton State Hospital, testified that appellant met the criteria for continued treatment. Dr. Huff-Musgrove concurred in appellant's diagnosis of schizophrenia, paranoid type, which is manifested by symptoms that include persecutory and conspiratorial delusions. The

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

doctor also opined that appellant's symptoms were not in remission because he continued to respond to internal stimuli and adhere to his delusional beliefs. The doctor believed that appellant's continued denial of his mental illness had itself risen to the level of a delusional belief. Dr. Huff-Musgrove also believed that appellant represented a substantial danger of physical harm to others by reason of his severe mental disorder, due to his inability to acknowledge his illness and his lack of understanding regarding its symptoms and the need to take medication. Appellant also had a history of violence that included the commitment offense, in which he inflicted great bodily injury on two hospital staff members, and prior offenses of battery on a spouse and child, carjacking, and making criminal threats. Although appellant was cooperative and consistent in his treatment and his mental condition was improving, the doctor believed that he continued to meet the criteria for continued MDO treatment. Appellant testified on his own behalf. He does not believe he has a mental illness because he was not having any problems with his thinking and was able to fully function. He stated that he was taking his medication willingly and would continue to do so if released. He believed he was doing better in the past year and offered that he would be living with his mother upon his release. We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After examining the record, counsel advised us in writing that he could find no arguable issues. On September 3, 2014, we notified appellant that he had 30 days in which to submit any contentions he wished us to consider. We subsequently granted appellant's request for an extension of time to file a supplemental brief. On October 31, 2014, appellant filed a brief in which he contends (1) he "was fraudulently convicted" and is innocent of the charges that resulted in his MDO treatment; (2) Dr. Huff-Musgrove is "a deceiver" who testified untruthfully and