People v. Castro CA2/6

Filed 5/21/15 P. v. Castro CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B259396 (Super. Ct. No. 14PT00438) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County) v. RALPH CASTRO, Defendant and Appellant.

Ralph Castro appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court determined that he was a mentally disordered offender (MDO; Pen. Code, § 2962.)1 Appellant suffers from exhibitionism, a sexual disorder similar to paraphilia, and contends that the evidence does not support the finding that he is an MDO. We affirm. Procedural History Doctor Timothy Nastasi, a psychologist at Atascadero State Hospital, interviewed appellant and appellant's treatment team, reviewed appellant's medical 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. The six criteria for an MDO commitment are: the prisoner (1) has a severe mental disorder; (2) used force or violence in committing the underlying offense; (3) had a mental disorder that caused or was an aggravating factor in the commission of the underlying offense; (4) the disorder is not in remission or capable of being kept in remission without treatment; (5) the prisoner was treated for the disorder for at least 90 days in the year prior to his parole or release; and (6) the prisoner poses a serious threat of physical harm to others by reason of the disorder. (§ 2962, subd. (d)(1); People v. Clark (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1075- 1076.)

records and four mental health evaluations, and testified that appellant meets all the MDO criteria. Appellant suffers from exhibitionist disorder, a severe mental disorder similar to pedophilia in which appellant displays his genitals to unsuspecting victims. Since 1984, appellant suffered 10 convictions for indecent exposure, four California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) rule violations for indecent exposure, and 14 adjudicated cases for exposing his genitals. Appellant's 2004 commitment offenses (indecent exposure and resisting arrest) is based on an incident in which appellant took his penis out of his pants and masturbated as two teenage girls walked past. The girls tried to ignore appellant and quickly walked away. Appellant grabbed the girls' buttocks and stroked his penis, then followed the girls to a gas station where they called the police. When police officers attempted to place appellant in custody, appellant threatened to kill the officers and their families. Doctor Nastasi opined that the severe mental disorder was a cause or aggravating factor in the commitment offenses and that appellant was not in remission. Like other paraphilia disorders, exhibitionistic disorders do not spontaneously go into remission. Doctor Nastasi explained: "The nature of the disorder is fantasies, desires and intense sexual arousal from exposing himself. We [w]on't know if it's under control . . . until . . . [appellant] completes a [treatment] program . . . or . . . gets out and . . . expose[s himself] to the unsuspecting targets." Doctor Nastasi opined appellant represented a substantial danger of physical harm to others by reason of the mental disorder and appellant's history of violent behavior. Two of the 10 convictions involved sexual assaults. In 1999, appellant grabbed a 14-year-old girl, hugged her, and grabbed her buttocks, breasts, and vagina while exposing his penis. The girl struggled with appellant and managed to break free. The 2004 commitment offenses involved a similar sexual assault in which appellant grabbed the girls' buttocks and chased them while exposing himself. Appellant claimed the victims "overreacted" and "just got it wrong."