People v. Grajeda CA3

Filed 4/11/16 P. v. Grajeda CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C078691

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 05F2543)

v.

TULIO ERNESTO GRAJEDA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Tulio Ernesto Grajeda appeals from the trial court’s order extending his commitment to a state hospital under Penal Code1 section 1026.5, subdivision (b). Defendant contends there is no substantial evidence: (1) that he “currently presented a substantial danger of physical harm to others”; or (2) that he “presently suffered from a volitional impairment rendering him dangerous beyond his control.” We affirm.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

BACKGROUND In 2005, the People charged defendant with carjacking, unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle, and giving false information to a police officer. The People further alleged defendant was twice previously convicted of a serious or violent felony and served a prior prison term. In 2007, the trial court found defendant not guilty by reason of insanity and committed him to the California Department of Health Care Services. (§ 1026.) His maximum commitment date was April 9, 2015. Defendant was admitted to Napa State Hospital but was transferred to Patton State Hospital (Patton) in October 2013. In October 2014, at the request of the medical director from Patton, the People petitioned the trial court to extend defendant’s commitment. Defendant waived a jury trial. At the bench trial on February 11, 2015, the People called Dr. Michael Ilas and Grace Dobey, LCSW (licensed clinical social worker); defendant did not call any witnesses. I Dr. Ilas’s Testimony As a staff psychiatrist, Dr. Ilas saw defendant in the halls several times a week. Dr. Ilas would ask defendant how things were going; defendant usually said very little in response. Dr. Ilas also met with defendant individually once a month for a “doctor visit, med check, or . . . anything.” At these meetings, defendant would usually refuse to sit down and talk to Dr. Ilas about his commitment offense, saying only that he was fine. Dr. Ilas also was part of defendant’s treatment team, so along with the rest of the treatment team, he met with defendant quarterly. At the quarterly meetings, the treatment team would discuss any problem behaviors, incidences, or general concerns regarding defendant. In the year preceding the hearing, defendant attended two of the quarterly meetings but missed the meeting in December 2014.