People v. Woods

Filed 9/19/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B269253 (Super. Ct. No. 15PT-00694) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

DILLAN MICHAEL WOODS,

Defendant and Appellant.

A prisoner may be committed for treatment under the Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO) Act if, among other things, he or she was sentenced to prison for an enumerated crime of violence or an unenumerated crime involving the use of force or violence or a threat to use force or violence likely to produce substantial physical harm.1 In People v. Stevens (2015) 62 Cal.4th 325 (Stevens), our Supreme Court held that “in a commitment hearing under the MDO Act, the People may not prove the facts underlying the commitment offense (that are necessary to establish the qualifying offense) through a mental health expert’s testimony.” (Id. at p. 339.)

1 Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (e)(2)(A)-(Q). All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Appellant Dillan Michael Woods was declared an MDO based on his conviction of resisting an executive officer (§ 69), an offense not specifically enumerated in the MDO Act. The qualifying nature of the crime, however, was established by evidence he pled guilty to a complaint expressly alleging that he used force and violence in committing the offense. We reject appellant’s claim that Stevens renders this evidence insufficient to support his MDO commitment. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2014, appellant was convicted of resisting an executive officer and was sentenced to two years in state prison. In October 2015, the Board of Parole Hearings certified him for MDO treatment. Dr. Brandi Mathews conducted an evaluation of appellant and reviewed his medical records and prior MDO evaluations. She also reviewed the probation report and consulted with appellant's treating psychologist and psychiatrist. Dr. Mathews concluded that appellant met the MDO criteria. On the issue of appellant’s commitment offense, the People offered copies of the felony complaint charging appellant with resisting an executive officer in violation of section 69 and the abstract of judgment reflecting he was convicted by guilty plea of that crime. The complaint states that appellant “did willfully and unlawfully attempt by means of threats and violence to deter and prevent Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office Deputies D. Roberts, J. Dyer, K. Emley, and J. Hiles, who were executive officers, from performing a duty imposed upon the officers by law, and knowingly resisted by the use of force and violence and by means of threats of violence the executive officers in the performance of duty.” The complaint further reflects that appellant was separately charged with committing a battery against Deputy Roberts in violation of sections 242 and 243.