People v. Jackson CA2/6

Filed 4/20/16 P. v. Jackson CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B265457 (Super. Ct. No. 15PT-00314) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

MAC JACKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

The Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) found that Mac Jackson (appellant) met the criteria of a mentally disordered offender (MDO) and required him to undergo involuntary mental health treatment for a period of one year. (Pen. Code, § 2962.)1 Appellant filed a petition to challenge the BPH's determination. (§ 2966, subd. (b).) The trial court, sitting without a jury, also found that appellant met the MDO criteria and ordered him committed to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for further treatment. Appellant contends there is no substantial evidence that his severe mental illness cannot be kept in remission without treatment. We affirm. Facts The sole witness at appellant's MDO hearing was Dr. Kevin Perry, a clinical psychologist employed at Atascadero State Hospital (ASH) who had met with

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

appellant. Perry testified that he reviewed appellant's hospital progress notes and prior psychiatric and psychological evaluations. Perry also met with appellant and consulted with his treatment team. Dr. Perry opined that appellant has schizophrenia, a severe mental disorder. According to Perry, appellant was convicted of assault with great bodily injury after he punched his 70-year old neighbor in the face and slashed the neighbor's wrist with a knife. The assault occurred after appellant accused the neighbor of sending some youngsters to "mess with" him. Dr. Perry opined that appellant's schizophrenia contributed to this offense. Appellant made delusional and paranoid statements before and after assaulting his neighbor. His behavior with the police officers who responded to the scene was "irrational, impulsive and counter-productive." He was also belligerent with the officers, who had to subdue him by using a taser. Perry testified that appellant's mental illness was in remission by the time of the BPH hearing. He explained that appellant's hospital progress notes "did not document any active or impairing symptoms since the time [appellant] was admitted to [ASH] on March 20 of 2015." Appellant had some mild symptoms in October 2014 and none during the five or six months prior to the BPH hearing. Despite this period of remission, Dr. Perry opined that appellant's mental illness could not be kept in remission without treatment because, during his residence at ASH, appellant had been "unreasonably noncompliant with treatment." He based this opinion on the circumstance that appellant was subject to an involuntary medication order (Keyhea v. Rushen (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 526), when he arrived at ASH, "although at that time the order was no longer enforced." Because the Keyhea order was in place, however, Dr. Perry opined that appellant did not voluntarily follow his treatment plan. Dr. Perry testified that, in his opinion, appellant poses "a substantial danger of physical harm to others" because he "has a history of being violent when his psychiatric symptoms are not well controlled." Appellant was in remission at the time of the BPH hearing only because he was taking medication. Dr. Perry believed appellant "did not have good insight as to his illness or his need for treatment. He told me he didn't