California Court of Appeal Feb 3, 2015 No. E059843Unpublished
Filed 2/3/15 P. v. Thomas CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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). Th is opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E059843
v. (Super.Ct.No. FELSS1301511)
TRINA THOMAS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Victor R. Stull,
Judge. Affirmed.
Barbara A. Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General,
Charles C. Ragland and Alastair J. Agcaoili, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Trina Thomas was declared a Mentally Disordered
Offender (MDO) pursuant to Penal Code 1 section 2962 in November 2006. In addition,
in 2010 defendant was deemed an MDO in connection with charges filed against her in
2009. On April 16, 2013, the People filed a petition to extend defendant’s mos t recent
substantial evidence, drawing all reasonable inferences, and resolving all conflicts, in
favor of the judgment.” (People v. Martin (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 970, 975, disapproved
on other grounds by People v. Achrem (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 153, 157.)
In essence, defendant’s attack on the judgment boils down to a complaint that the
jury cannot have found her to be dangerous because she has complied with medication
orders, and because her only acting out since her last act of violence in 2010 has taken the
7
form of verbal, but not overtly physical, outbursts. Even though the record supports the
assumptions that defendant is medication compliant and has not been physically violent
in several years, the conclusion defendant draws about her dangerousness does not
automatically follow.
First, the decrease in violent behavior may stem not from an increase in self-
control on defendant’s part, but from the fact that, as Dr. Galarza noted, staff and other
patients at Patton now know not to disturb defendant when she is actively hallucinating.
Second, defendant makes no attempt to undermine Dr. Galarza’s opinion that, even if she
has not been violent in the very recent past, she would likely become so now or in the
future if an unknown member of the public approached her during a hallucinatory
episode. Finally, defendant fails to account for Dr. Galarza’s opinion that she has only
limited insight into her schizophrenia, which means she is simultaneously more likely to
return to using illegal drugs that exacerbate her symptoms and less likely to take
medication or use psychosocial support options, as well as that she will not know, once
released into the community, how to prevent her symptoms from interfering with her life
or the lives of others or how to address problematic behavior should it occur.
For these reasons, substantial evidence supports Dr. Galarza’s conclusion that
defendant’s schizophrenia, which is not in remission, renders defendant dangerous to
others outside the controlled environment of the hospital because she has limited insight
into her diagnosis and tends to respond violently when people interrupt her during a
hallucinatory episode. We therefore affirm the judgment.
8
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER J.
MILLER J.
9
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that the defendant, a Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO), remained a substantial danger to others and thus qualified for a one-year commitment extension.
Issues
Whether the appeal of an expired MDO commitment order is moot.
Whether substantial evidence supports the jury's finding that the defendant represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“substantial evidence supports Dr. Galarza’s conclusion that defendant’s schizophrenia, which is not in remission, renders defendant dangerous to others outside the controlled environment of the hospital”
“the fact that defendant makes contentions that could, if successful, affect later recommitment proceedings means that the appeal is not moot.”