People v. Gonzales CA3

Filed 2/23/21 P. v. Gonzales CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C089237

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 99F02522)

v.

RONALD GONZALES,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Ronald Gonzales appeals from a trial court order extending his civil commitment under Penal Code section 1026.5,1 after being found not guilty by reason of insanity. Defendant contends the trial court erred by improperly admitting case-specific testimonial hearsay through the testimony of two expert psychiatric witnesses. We conclude defendant forfeited this claim. Anticipating this conclusion, defendant also

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

contends counsel was ineffective for failing to object. The record reflects counsel had a reasonable tactical purpose; accordingly, counsel was not ineffective in not objecting to the testimony. We will affirm the order. BACKGROUND2 Defendant has a long history of schizophrenia, polysubstance dependence, and antisocial personality disorder. In 1999, defendant was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)) and the trial court committed him to a state hospital. After a 2005 revocation from Conditional Release Program (CONREP), an outpatient treatment program, defendant was returned to Napa State Hospital. The trial court has since extended his involuntary commitment multiple times. (People v. Gonzales (Jan. 15, 2019, C085518) [nonpub. opn.].) In April 2019, this most recent recommitment proceeding was heard. Drs. Amrit Saini and Kobita Rikhye testified as experts for the People. Napa State Hospital psychiatrist Dr. Amrit Saini was defendant’s treating psychiatrist from September 2017 to October 2018. Based on Dr. Saini’s own evaluations, defendant’s historical factors, recent clinical pattern, lack of insight into his mental illness and judgment, mental health diagnoses, medical history and treatment compliance levels, and medical records, Dr. Saini concluded if defendant were released in an unsupervised setting, defendant presented a substantial danger to the safety of others, a high risk of future violence, and a high possibility of substance use relapse. Dr. Saini also concluded defendant’s discharge plan was incomplete and would not hold up well in practice. The parties stipulated, if called to testify, defendant’s current treating psychiatrist, Dr. Aslam, would testify defendant had declined to participate in telepsychiatric evaluations and he had not met with defendant in his capacity as a psychiatrist.