People v. Barrow CA2/6

Filed 4/11/16 P. v. Barrow CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B264704 (Super. Ct. No. 15PT-00218) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

RAEKUBIAN BARROW,

Defendant and Appellant.

Raekubian Barrow appeals a judgment committing him to the State Department of State Hospitals for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen. Code, § 2962.)1 We conclude sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Barrow meets the criteria for commitment. Barrow’s counsel did not render ineffective assistance when he did not offer a translation of an Italian newspaper article or object to expert testimony about a probation report and hospital progress notes. We affirm. BACKGROUND In 2008, a jury convicted Barrow of making criminal threats after he threatened to kill his roommate and her family. (§ 422.) The roommate said Barrow had twice previously threatened her with knife. The trial court sentenced Barrow to seven years in state prison. Barrow’s criminal history includes convictions for assault with a

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

deadly weapon or force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245), carrying a concealed weapon (former § 12025, subd. (a)), grand theft from a person (former § 487, subd. (c)), second degree robbery (§ 211), and false imprisonment (§ 236). When Barrow completed his prison term in April 2015, the Board of Parole Hearings determined that he met the criteria for commitment as a mentally disordered offender. (§ 2962.) Barrow requested a trial. (§ 2966, subd. (a).) The trial court appointed counsel to represent him. Barrow waived jury. The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that Barrow meets the commitment criteria. It ordered him committed to the California Department of Mental Health for treatment. At trial, Joe DeBruin, Ph.D., a psychologist employed by Atascadero State Hospital (ASH), opined that Barrow suffers from a delusional disorder, a severe mental disorder within the meaning of section 2962 that is not in remission. DeBruin based his assessment on a personal meeting with Barrow and consultations with a member of Barrow’s treatment team. DeBruin also reviewed progress notes about Barrow’s daily behavior at ASH, prior evaluations, and a probation officer’s report that described Barrow’s commitment offense and prior criminal history. The parties stipulated to the qualifying conviction. DeBruin testified that during the interview Barrow was “extremely delusional,” his mood was “very elevated,” and he had "very poor insight.” DeBruin described Barrow’s “delusional ideation,” and “persecutory delusions,” including Barrow’s belief that his arrest and conviction were a “setup,” that his neighbor and roommate conspired against him, and that the district attorney was corrupt and gave a witness a free trip to Hawaii. DeBruin also described Barrow’s “grandiose delusions.” Barrow told DeBruin that he was a judo champion at San Francisco State University, was the Northern California Tennis Association’s player of the year, and played professional football in Italy as a “running back, a defense and a wide receiver.” Barrow talked about playing for the National Football League and the Canadian Football League. Barrow told DeBruin that he was a model for Georgio Armani on the front cover of magazines and that “the paparazzi were all over [him] like ants.” Barrow said he was a friend of female