People v. Darnell CA2/6

Filed 10/17/22 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, 2d Crim. No. B317252 (Cons. w/ B317255) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 21PT-00257, 20PT-00392) v. (San Luis Obispo County)

EDWARD DARNELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

In a prior opinion1, we reversed an order recommitting appellant Edward Darnell for treatment as an offender with a mental health disorder (OMHD; Pen. Code, §§ 2970, 2972). This appeal concerns what happened after we remanded the case. The trial court recommitted appellant twice: first after retrial on the original petition and again after trial on a later-filed petition. Appellant contends neither trial should have taken place and

People v. Darnell (May 17, 2021, B307437) [nonpub. opn.] 1

(Darnell I).

seeks to reverse both recommitment orders in this consolidated appeal. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Darnell I The trial court first certified appellant as an OMHD in 2004. The People filed a petition to recommit him in June 2020 (the June 2020 petition).2 (Pen. Code,3 § 2970.) The trial court granted the petition based in part on psychologist Brandi Mathews, Psy.D.’s opinion that appellant continued to represent a “substantial danger of physical harm to others.” (§ 2972, subd. (c).) We concluded in Darnell I that her opinions were based on treatment records and other hearsay documents the People did not offer into evidence. The record also revealed the trial court erred by allowing Dr. Mathews to recite case-specific hearsay facts while testifying. (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez). We reversed the recommitment order and remanded the case for further proceedings. Retrial on June 2020 Petition The parties disagreed about how to proceed on remand. The People sought retrial of the June 2020 petition. Appellant opposed retrial and sought to dismiss the petition as barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The trial court found the People were entitled to a retrial. Dr. Mathews again testified, this time referring to treatment records, reports,