People v. Grundstrom CA2/6

Filed 2/3/16 P. v. Grundstrom CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B263885 (Super. Ct. No. 15PT-00079) Plaintiff and Appellant, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

DONALD GRUNDSTROM,

Defendant and Respondent.

The trial court vacated an order by the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) certifying respondent Donald Grundstom as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). It found the Board waited too long to begin the MDO evaluation and certification process and ordered Grundstrom released from custody. The People appeal, contending the trial court erred because the Board acted within the time provided by Penal Code section 2963.1 We agree with the People. The trial court's order is reversed. Facts and Procedural History Respondent was sentenced on September 4, 2014 to three years in prison following his conviction of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury. By that time, he had accumulated custody credits that were just 10 days' shy of three years. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) determined that

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 1

respondent's maximum release date was September 25, 2014. He was not released on September 25, but was instead transferred to state custody and received there one day later, on September 26. On October 3, 2014, the CDCR notified respondent of its determination that respondent "meets the screening criteria to ascertain whether referral to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for treatment as [an MDO] pursuant to PC Section 2962 is appropriate." The CDCR imposed "a 45-day 'No Bail' hold pursuant to [Penal Code] Section 2963 to facilitate full MDO evaluations by CDCR and DSH clinicians." A chief psychiatrist evaluated respondent and, on October 30, 2014, certified that he met the MDO criteria. Respondent was paroled to the state hospital for treatment as an MDO. On January 28, 2015, the Board sustained respondent's MDO certification. Respondent requested a hearing following the Board's commitment order. On March 30, 2015, respondent filed a motion to grant his petition challenging the MDO certification on the ground that it had been untimely. Respondent contended that, because his maximum release date was September 25, he was already a parolee on October 3, when the CDCR imposed the 45-day hold and began the MDO certification process. Section 2962, subdivision (d)(1) mandates that the MDO certification process begin "prior to release on parole." Respondent's certification as an MDO was, he contended, untimely. Appellant opposed the petition, arguing the certification was timely because it occurred within the 45-day extension period authorized by section 2963. The trial court agreed with respondent. It reasoned that the CDCR could have imposed the 45-day hold on any date before respondent's maximum release date of September 25. On the 25th, however, "they ran out of time to do anything. On the 25th they could have done the 45-day; on the 26th they couldn't, and not in October." It granted the petition because, it concluded, section 2963 "is not enough to cover the situation we have here, as [respondent] was technically not in custody at the time of the 45-day extension for evaluation."