People v. Itehua CA2/6

Filed 10/19/15 P. v. Itehua CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B260213 (Super. Ct. No. 14PT-00534) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

ELIAS ITEHUA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Elias Itehua appeals an order of the superior court recommitting him for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen. Code, § 2962.) We conclude that substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that Itehua poses a substantial risk of physical harm to other persons. We affirm. FACTS The Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) determined that Itehua met the criteria to be recommitted for treatment as an MDO. Itehua filed a petition to challenge the BPH determination. Itehua waived his right to a jury trial. Phylissa Kwartner, a psychologist at the Atascadero State Hospital, testified that Itehua met "all the criteria" to be recommitted for treatment as an MDO. Itehua's 2012 commitment offense involved stalking a married woman for six weeks. He texted and called her on a daily basis. She had to change her phone number nine times. He went to her home on a daily basis "giving her affirmations of his affection." She obtained

a restraining order. He violated it by approaching her at her home. She "felt threatened," used pepper spray, and called 911. Kwartner said Itehua had "an erotomanic delusion" that he had a romantic relationship with the victim. Itehua suffers from schizophrenia. His severe mental disorder cannot be kept in remission without treatment. He continues to have the delusion that he has a romantic relationship with the same victim. Kwartner testified Itehua represents "a substantial danger of physical harm to others by reason of his severe mental disorder." The trial court found Itehua met the criteria for an MDO recommitment. It said, "[W]hile he's been treated, he still has the same delusion." It noted that he was "still focused" on the same victim of his commitment offense. The court said that "he has apparently no insight and is not being cooperative with the treatment." DISCUSSION Substantial Evidence Itehua contends there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that he represents a substantial danger of physical harm to other persons. We disagree. "We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the court's findings." (People v. Itehua (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 356, 359.) "We do not decide the credibility of witnesses or weigh the evidence." (Ibid.) To commit a defendant for treatment as an MDO, the People must prove that he or she poses a "substantial risk of physical harm" to another person. (People v. Baker (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1234, 1247.) Itehua was originally committed for treatment as an MDO because he stalked a married woman as his victim. (People v. Itehua, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. 360.) In 2014, we affirmed the trial court's commitment order for Itehua and held his stalking "pattern of conduct was an implied credible threat" to that victim. (Ibid.) At his MDO recommitment hearing, Kwartner testified that Itehua currently represents "a substantial danger of physical harm to others by reason of his severe