People v. Garcia CA6

Filed 2/10/15 P. v. Garcia CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H040281 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. Nos. 153966, 154018)

v.

MANUEL GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION After a court trial, defendant Manuel Garcia1 was found to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO) and was ordered committed for continued involuntary treatment for one year, until November 25, 2014. (See Pen. Code, §§ 2970, 2972.)2 On appeal, defendant contests the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding that he is an MDO. He contends that the commitment order should be reversed and that he should be released. While the appeal was pending, defendant’s term of commitment expired and he was apparently released. In response to our request for supplemental briefing, the parties agree that the appeal is now moot. As we will explain, we will dismiss the appeal.

1 The record on appeal contains documents that also refer to defendant as “Manuel Ronald Garcia” and “Manuel Ruano Garcia.” 2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

II. BACKGROUND In April 2013, the district attorney filed a petition to extend defendant’s involuntary treatment as an MDO for one year. According to the petition, defendant had been convicted of violating sections 245, subdivision (a)(1), and 288, subdivision (a). In 1992, defendant was sentenced to a total of four years in prison. In November 1993, he was admitted to a state hospital as an MDO. Defendant was later discharged to a conditional release program but was recommitted to a state hospital a short time later, following a violation of both parole and the conditions of the conditional release program. Defendant’s commitment for involuntary treatment was periodically extended by the court. In the April 2013 petition, the district attorney alleged that defendant suffered from a severe mental disorder, that the disorder was not in remission and could not be kept in remission without continued treatment, and that by reason of his disorder defendant represented a substantial danger of physical harm to others. The district attorney sought to continue defendant’s involuntary treatment for one year, until November 25, 2014. On October 15, 2013, a court trial was held on the petition. Defendant and Dr. Simarjit Singh Gill, a psychiatrist at Coalinga State Hospital, were the only witnesses to testify at trial. Defendant was admitted to Coalinga State Hospital in April 2013 and had been a patient of Dr. Gill since April 2013. Prior to that time, defendant was at Napa State Hospital for approximately 13 years. Dr. Gill was familiar with defendant’s history based on defendant’s records from the state hospitals and from a conditional release program. Dr. Gill also testified as an expert in rendering psychological diagnoses and making risk assessments. Dr. Gill testified that defendant’s diagnoses included schizophrenia, paranoid type; pedophilia, sexually attracted to females nonexclusive type; and polysubstance dependence. Defendant’s schizophrenia required control by medication and psychosocial