People v. Diaz CA3

Filed 1/27/15 P. v. Diaz CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C075831

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MHO0303)

v.

ELTON JUAN LUIS DIAZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Thirty-six-year-old defendant Elton Juan Luis Diaz appeals from an order extending his civil commitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). He was originally committed to a state hospital as an MDO in 2004 following his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon with great bodily injury for demanding money from a store clerk, shoving the clerk, and hitting the clerk in the face with his fist. His current diagnosis was for schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, which played an “active role in his behavior, impairing his decision making,” and antisocial personality disorder. He

1

also had polysubstance abuse disorder for alcohol, methamphetamine, and marijuana use that was in remission. On appeal, defendant contends there was insufficient evidence that he was currently dangerous and that his severe mental disorder caused serious difficulty in controlling dangerous behavior. We conclude the evidence was sufficient and affirm the trial court’s order extending his commitment. DISCUSSION “ ‘The Mentally Disordered Offender Act (MDO Act), enacted in 1985, requires that offenders who have been convicted of violent crimes related to their mental disorders, and who continue to pose a danger to society, receive mental health treatment . . . until their mental disorder can be kept in remission.’ ” (Lopez v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1055, 1061, disapproved on another point in People v. Harrison (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1211, 1230.) “Commitment as an MDO is not indefinite; instead, ‘[a]n MDO is committed for . . . one-year period[s] and thereafter has the right to be released unless the People prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he or she should be recommitted for another year.’ ” (Lopez, at p. 1063.) To obtain an extension of one year, the People must prove that: (1) the person continues to have a severe mental disorder; (2) the person’s mental disorder is not in remission or cannot be kept in remission without treatment; and (3) because of his mental disorder, the person continues to represent a substantial danger of physical harm to others. (Pen. Code, § 2972, subd. (c); People v. Lopez, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 1063; People v. Beeson (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1393, 1398-1399.) Furthermore, an involuntary civil commitment requires proof that the person’s mental disorder causes serious difficulty in controlling dangerous behavior. (In re Howard N. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 117, 122.) A mental health professional “may and should take into account the prisoner’s entire history in making an MDO evaluation. This includes prior violent offenses as well as the prisoner’s mental health history.” (People v. Pace (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 795,