People v. Hoiby CA2/6

Filed 6/15/16 P. v. Hoiby CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B267533 (Super. Ct. No. 15PT-00419) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

JASON HOIBY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Jason Hoiby appeals an order of the superior court committing him for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen. Code, § 2962.) We conclude, among other things, that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Hoiby poses a substantial risk of physical harm to other persons because of his mental disorder. We affirm. FACTS In 2011, Hoiby was convicted of assault with a firearm and sentenced to a state prison term. In 2015, the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) determined that Hoiby met the criteria to be committed for treatment as a MDO. Hoiby filed a superior court petition to challenge that BPH determination. The trial court appointed counsel for him. Hoiby waived his right to a jury trial.

At trial, Dia Gunnarsson, Ph.D., testified Hoiby has a delusional disorder which constitutes a “severe mental illness.” Hoiby’s 2011 commitment offense was for assault with a firearm. Neighbors had complained about loud music coming from Hoiby’s house. When the police arrived, Hoiby “appeared with a firearm, waved it towards the police officer’s head and threatened” the officer. From a window, Hoiby pointed a gun at an officer’s head. He was four feet away from the officer. Hoiby called a police dispatch center and made threats against the police officers. The police called for “required backup” and “air support.” Gunnarsson said Hoiby’s mental illness played “a role in his qualifying offense.” Hoiby’s behavior that day was “indicative of paranoia.” He believed someone was following him, that the police were harassing him “because of a faulty alarm system,” or because someone thought he was a bank robber. He did not believe the law enforcement officers who arrived were actually police officers. Gunnarsson said Hoiby’s disorder is not in remission. Hoiby is still “demonstrating delusional beliefs.” He believed that “unseen entities” were “stabbing him” and that his medications “ruined his immune system.” Gunnarsson said Hoiby meets all the requirements for a MDO commitment and poses “a substantial risk of physical harm to others by reason of his mental disorder.” She said that Hoiby’s commitment offense was “pretty violent, pretty dangerous” and that he lacks insight as to his mental illness. Hoiby’s delusional beliefs and substance abuse are risk factors “when he does leave the hospital.” In Hoiby’s defense, Trayci Dahl, Ph.D., testified Hoiby meets all the requirements for a MDO commitment, except one—he does not pose a substantial risk of physical harm to others because of his mental disorder. She said he had no history of violence prior to his commitment offense and he “did not cause any substantial bodily harm to anyone.” His offense was “very threatening” but “threats won’t harm me.” The trial court found Hoiby met all the “requisite criteria” for a MDO commitment. It ordered that he be committed to the California Department of State Hospitals for treatment as a MDO.