People v. Larson CA3

Filed 10/13/21 P. v. Larson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C091578

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CM018145)

v.

IAN KEITH LARSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2003, defendant Ian Keith Larson pleaded no contest to several crimes and was found not guilty by reason of insanity. In 2019, defendant petitioned the trial court for outpatient treatment under Penal Code section 1026.2.1 After holding a hearing on the petition, the trial court denied the petition finding defendant was a danger to the health

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

and safety of others due to mental defect, disease, or disorder. On appeal, defendant challenges this finding, arguing the trial court abused its discretion. We affirm. BACKGROUND Underlying Offense During a drug-induced psychotic episode, defendant broke into his landlady’s home with a baseball bat and forced her to orally copulate him. Defendant was charged with forcible oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c)(2), count 1) with enhancements (§ 667.61, subds. (a), (b), and (e)), assault with the intent to commit a felony (§ 220, count 2), assault with a deadly weapon by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count 3), criminal threats (§ 422, count 4), and first degree residential burglary (§ 459, count 5). On November 3, 2003, defendant pleaded no contest to counts 1, 3, and 5, and admitted the enhancements to count 1. He also pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. On January 26, 2004, the trial court found defendant not guilty by reason of insanity and committed him to the Department of State Hospitals. Petition for Outpatient Treatment In May 2019, defendant filed a petition under section 1026.2 for outpatient treatment. Two doctors testified regarding defendant’s petition. Dr. Don Stembridge, a forensic clinical psychologist, was appointed by the court for defendant and submitted a report for the purposes of defendant’s petition. Dr. Ana Kodzic, a forensic evaluator at defendant’s hospital, testified for the People and her most recent progress report on defendant, dated July 30, 2019, was submitted into evidence. Dr. Stembridge On January 30, 2020, Dr. Stembridge testified, largely reading from his report, that defendant did not pose a substantial danger to others if released from the hospital. He said defendant had shown significant improvement in the hospital, including recovering from illicit substance use, reduced his antisocial attitudes, and understood his