People v. Labelle

[151]Opinion

YEGAN, P. J. Matthew Labelle appeals from the judgment after the trial court found that he was a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen. Code, § 2960 et seq.)1 The commitment offense was felony vandalism. (§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(1).) Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the commitment offense met the force or violence criterion of section 2962, subdivision (e)(2)(Q). The contention is without merit and we affirm the judgment.

Commitment Offense

A hotel employee notified the police that appellant “was challenging people to fight and trying to get into other people[’]s vehicles.” Appellant attempted to flee when the police arrived. Officers chased him, ordered him to stop, and ultimately handcuffed him. He was placed in the backseat of a patrol car and began kicking a back door window. A police officer “grabbed hold of the door handle and advised [appellant] not to kick the window again.” Appellant “kicked the window again causing the window to shatter and continued kicking the shattered window.” The police officer “raised his arm to protect his eyes” from flying shards of glass. A small shard of glass punctured and became “stuck in” the officer’s thumb. The officer “removed the shard of glass from his thumb at the scene and did not seek medical attention.”

Standard of Review

The substantial evidence rule applies to appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence in MDO proceedings. (People v. Miller (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 913, 919-920 [31 Cal.Rptr.2d 423].) We review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—“evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value”—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the commitment offense was a qualifying offense under the MDO statute. (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11 [82 Cal.Rptr.2d 413, 971 P.2d 618].)

Discussion

Appellant contends that reversal is required pursuant to our opinion in People v. Green (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 907 [48 Cal.Rptr.3d 464]. There the commitment offense was also felony vandalism. After being placed in the backseat of a police car, the defendant became angry and “kicked out the [152]