People v. Monroy CA2/6

Filed 3/29/22 P. v. Monroy 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B315832 (Super. Ct. No. 20MH-0185) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

ROBERT MONROY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Robert Monroy is an Offender with a Mental Health Disorder (OMD) committed to the Department of State Hospitals at Atascadero (DSH) in April of 2020 as a condition of parole. DSH obtained an order compelling defendant’s involuntary treatment with antipsychotic medication pursuant to In re Qawi (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1. The court granted DSH’s petition to renew the order on October 15, 2021. (Pen. Code, § 1370, subd. (a)(2)(B)(i).) Defendant timely appealed. We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that states the case and

facts but raises no specific issues. Wende review, however, is available only in a first appeal of right from a criminal conviction. (People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 501 (Serrano); Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 543-544; People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304.) Defendant is not entitled to Wende review because he appeals an order requiring involuntary medication, not his conviction on the criminal charges brought in connection with his commitment offense. We will proceed with this appeal pursuant to the standards we enunciated in Serrano for this reason. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf pursuant to Serrano. Defendant submitted a brief contending the Haldol injections administered by DSH violate his free exercise of religion. The United States Constitution (first and fourteenth Amendments) and California Constitution (Cal. Const. art. 1, § 4) prohibit involuntary medication that burdens a patient’s free exercise of religion, unless a compelling state interest outweighs the patient’s interests in religious freedom. (People v. Woody (1964) 61 Cal.2d 716, 718; State Dept. of State Hospitals v. A.H. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 441, 446-447.) We review the court’s order for substantial evidence. (People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 701; People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 314.) The State of California has a compelling interest under the doctrine of parens patrie to care for persons unable to care for themselves and to prevent an individual from harming himself or others. (In re Qawi, supra, 32 Cal.4th at pp. 15-16.) The evidence credited by the trial court is sufficient to find a compelling interest in medicating defendant involuntarily. A DSH psychiatrist testified defendant’s exhibited psychosis and disorganized thinking prior to receiving his current regimen. He would simply stand naked or lie on the floor of his cell, unable to