People v. Alexander CA2/6

Filed 3/3/16 P. v. Alexander CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B265539 (Super. Ct. No. 15PT-00270) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

JOE ALEXANDER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Joe Alexander appeals an order determining him to be a mentally disordered offender ("MDO") and committing him to the Department of Mental Health for involuntary treatment. (Pen. Code, § 2962, et seq.)1 We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 4, 2014, Alexander shattered two windows in his sister's automobile and set the vehicle on fire. The automobile was parked near the apartment building where his sister resided; a bystander stood nearby and briefly spoke with Alexander. Alexander was later convicted of arson pursuant to section 451, subdivision (d), following his guilty plea. On July 11, 2014, the San Bernardino County court sentenced him to one year four months imprisonment.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

On April 30, 2015, the Board of Parole Hearings determined that Alexander was an MDO pursuant to the criteria of section 2962. As a condition of parole, the Board required him to accept treatment from the Department of Mental Health. On May 8, 2015, Alexander filed a petition pursuant to section 2966, subdivision (b) to contest this decision. Alexander waived a jury trial. Doctor Joe Debruin, a forensic psychologist employed by Atascadero State Hospital, reviewed Alexander's treatment records, the written evaluations regarding Alexander prepared by other mental health experts, and the probation report submitted in the underlying sentencing proceedings. Debruin also interviewed Alexander. Debruin opined that Alexander suffers from schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, characterized by his disorganized and delusional thinking, auditory and visual hallucinations, agitation, and paranoia, among other symptoms. Debruin concluded that Alexander had received the requisite 90 days of treatment for his severe mental disorder during the year prior to his release date; that he was not in remission at the time of his Board of Parole Hearings hearing; and that he could not be kept in remission without treatment. Alexander had displayed overt symptoms of his mental disorder and had assaulted a county jail employee on June 22, 2014. Debruin also opined that Alexander represented a substantial danger of physical harm to others by reason of his mental disorder based upon his "robust criminal history," failures on supervised release, parole violations, and substance abuse history. Without objection, Debruin testified that Alexander was convicted of a requisite qualifying criminal offense -- arson posing a substantial danger of physical harm to others. (§ 451, subd. (d).) During Alexander's interview, he informed Debruin that he suffered auditory hallucinations that commanded him to set his sister's automobile on fire. Alexander stated that he had not been taking his psychotropic medication at the time of the arson. Debruin also testified that the probation report discloses that a bystander saw Alexander break the windows, start the fire, and then flee on his bicycle. When police officers arrived, the vehicle was "fully engulfed" in flames. Based upon this