People v. Darnell CA2/6

Filed 5/17/21 P. v. Darnell 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 OF THE STATE 2d Crim. No. B307437 OF CALIFORNIA, (Super. Ct. No. 20PT-00392) (San Luis Obispo County) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

EDWARD DARNELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Edward Darnell appeals the trial court’s order recommitting him for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO; Pen. Code,1 §§ 2970, 2972). Appellant contends, and the People concede, that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding that appellant represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others by reason of a severe mental disorder, as set forth in section 2972, subdivision (c). Although the People presented expert opinion testimony on this issue, the

All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 1

otherwise stated.

expert did not personally interview or observe appellant and her testimony was not supported by any other admissible evidence in the record. The People also correctly concede that the court prejudicially erred in allowing the expert to repeatedly convey case-specific hearsay in violation of People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant was first committed as an MDO in 2015. In June 2020, the People filed a petition to recommit appellant as an MDO pursuant to section 2970. Appellant waived his right to a jury trial. Dr. Brandi Mathews, a forensic psychologist at Atascadero State Hospital (ASH), testified on behalf of the People. Since 2015, Dr. Mathews had evaluated appellant’s case annually to determine if he met the MDO criteria. The doctor had never personally interviewed appellant because he refused to participate. In conducting her most recent evaluation Dr. Mathews reviewed appellant’s probation report, his ASH chart documenting his daily behavior, and his prior MDO evaluations. The doctor also spoke with appellant’s treating psychiatrist in January 2020 and reviewed the psychiatrist’s evaluations of appellant. Dr. Mathews opined that appellant met the criteria for recommitment as an MDO. The doctor concluded that appellant currently suffered from a severe mental disorder, i.e., schizoaffective order, bipolar type. Based on her review of appellant’s records, Dr. Mathews testified that appellant exhibited symptoms of auditory hallucinations, made paranoid and grandiose delusional statements, and had a history of disorganized thinking and manic and depressive episodes. The doctor also opined that appellant’s severe mental disorder was