People v. C.M. CA2/6

Filed 12/16/20 P. v. C.M. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B304628 (Super. Ct. No. 19PT-01117) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

C.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

C.M. suffers from pedophilic disorder, a severe mental disorder, and appeals an order recommitting him to the Department of Mental Health for treatment as a mentally disordered offender. (MDO; Pen. Code, § 2962 et seq.))1 Appellant contends the evidence is insufficient, as a matter of law, to support the finding that he poses a substantial danger to others by reason of his mental disorder. We affirm.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Procedural History Appellant was convicted of sexually molesting his prepubescent 12-year-old daughter in 2015 and sentenced to state prison. (§ 288, subd. (a)). In 2018, the trial court found that appellant was an MDO and committed him to the State Department of State Hospitals for treatment. (§ 2962 et seq.) We affirmed the judgment in (People v. C.M. (May 20, 2019, B291469) [nonpub. opn.]). In 2018, the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) extended appellant’s treatment. Appellant filed a petition challenging the BPH determination and the trial court found that appellant met all the criteria for an MDO recommitment. We affirmed the judgment in (People v. C. M. (Dec, 17, 2019, B296041) [nonpub. opn.]). In 2019, the BPH again committed appellant for treatment. Appellant filed a petition on December 10, 2019, challenging the BPH determination and waived jury trial. (§ 2966, subd. (c).) The trial court found that appellant met all the MDO criteria2 and was a substantial danger to others based on the following evidence.

2 To obtain an MDO recommitment, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that (1) the defendant continues to have a severe mental disorder; (2) the severe mental disorder is not in remission or cannot be kept in remission without treatment; and (3) because of his severe mental disorder, the defendant continues to represent a substantial danger of physical harm to others. (§ 2972, subd. (c).) “A defendant’s condition a year earlier is relevant but not dispositive of these questions.” (People v. Cobb (2010) 48 Cal.4th 243, 252.)