People v. Alvarados CA2/6

Filed 11/15/21 P. v. Alvarados CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, 2d Crim. No. B311609 (Super. Ct. No. F325854001) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

MARCOS A. ALVARADOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Marcos A. Alvarados appeals from the judgment extending his state hospital commitment pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.5.1 He contends the evidence was insufficient to support a finding necessary for the extension. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2004, Alvarados was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI). The trial court granted a petition for commitment (§ 1026, subd. (b)), and ordered Alvarados

1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

committed to the State Department of State Hospitals. His maximum term of commitment was set to expire in March 2021. In November 2020, the prosecution petitioned to extend Alvarados’s commitment. (§ 1026.5, subd. (b).) At the hearing, psychologist Dr. Nikkie Rodriguez opined that Alvarados suffered from schizophrenia. She based her opinions on Alvarados’s hospital records, interdisciplinary notes, consultation with his treatment team, and an interview with him. She testified that Alvarados had a “long history of chronic mental illness” with hospital records dating back to 2002. He had previously received treatment for schizophrenia. Dr. Rodriguez opined that Alvarados continued to represent a substantial danger of harm to others. She based her opinion on Alvarados’s “documented history of violence” related to his psychiatric symptoms. She found him to “still be impaired by the symptoms . . . that were present at the time of the crime.” Moreover, she stated that he presented several “risk factors” including his lack of a relapse prevention plan, his lack of insight into his mental illness or the need for treatment, and his “marginal participation” in treatment groups. She said that he needed to gain insight into his mental illness and to recognize “what some of his signs of decompensation are so that he may intervene and act appropriately, respond appropriately, so that he doesn’t decompensate into a state that would lead him to become violent.” She opined that he met the criteria for continued treatment pursuant to section 1026.5, subdivision (b). The court granted the petition extending Alvarados’s commitment for two years (§ 1026.5, subd. (b)(1)). The court noted that although Alvarados “does seem as though he’s doing well in the hospital setting, . . . Dr. Rodriguez’s testimony is that