People v. Belle CA1/5

Filed 9/25/15 P. v. Belle CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A144420 v. JIMMY LEE BELLE, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. VC42083) Defendant and Appellant.

In 1997, Jimmy Lee Belle was found not guilty by reason of insanity on a charge of robbery with a one-year prior prison term sentencing enhancement. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 667.5, subd. (b), 1026.)1 Belle initially was committed to the state hospital for a maximum term of seven years. (§ 1026.5, subd. (a).) His commitment has been extended several times since. (§ 1026.5, subd. (b).) In 2008, Belle stipulated to a two- year extension of his commitment, and the court ordered him conditionally released into an outpatient program under the supervision of the county conditional release program (CONREP). The court renewed Belle’s outpatient status annually from 2009 to 2014. (§ 1606.) In September 2014, CONREP requested revocation of Belle’s outpatient status. (§ 1608.) Following a contested hearing, the court revoked Belle’s outpatient status and ordered him to remain at the state hospital, where he had previously been readmitted. Belle appeals the order revoking his outpatient status.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Appointed counsel has submitted a brief stating that he can identify no arguable issues to be pursued on appeal. (See Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 544 (Ben C.).) Counsel asks us to conduct an independent review of the record. We decline to do so, and dismiss the appeal. I. BACKGROUND As noted ante, Belle’s initial insanity commitment was repeatedly extended. In 2006, the trial court granted Belle’s request for conditional release into a supervised outpatient program for one year, and his outpatient status was renewed in March 2007. (§§ 1604, 1606.) In October 2007, the court revoked Belle’s outpatient status and ordered him returned to the state hospital. (§ 1608.) Belle was again conditionally released to outpatient care in 2008, and his outpatient status was renewed annually through 2014. In September 2014, CONREP informed the court that Belle had been readmitted to the state hospital and requested revocation of his outpatient status. (§§ 1608, 1610.) At a contested hearing, the People presented testimony that Belle was readmitted to Napa State Hospital following an incident with his landlady in which Belle’s behavior caused the woman to fear for her safety. Belle was characterized as “acutely and floridly psychotic.” Elizabeth Barber, a forensic mental health specialist with CONREP, testified that prior to hospitalization, Belle was noncompliant with CONREP rules, including a curfew. Belle told Barber that he did not want outpatient treatment and supervision. Before Belle’s hospital readmission, CONREP staff had been concerned about Belle’s lack of insight into his prior criminal conduct and the psychotic symptoms of his mental illness (including auditory hallucinations as well as disorganized, illogical, and tangential thoughts). After readmission to Napa State Hospital, Belle wrote “inappropriate,” “romantic” letters to a female former neighbor. In December 2014, Belle sent a letter to another woman in which he suggested they “open a whore house together.” In the structured environment of the hospital, Belle was medication-compliant but did not self-report his