P. v. Sorenson CA2/6

Filed 4/25/13 P. v. Sorenson CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B242938 (Super. Ct. No. F472797) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

RONALD SORENSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Ronald Sorenson appeals from a judgment declaring him to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO) and committing him to the Department of Mental Health for treatment. (Pen. Code, § 2962.)1 Appellant contends that no admissible evidence was offered to support the trial court's findings that appellant's commitment offense involved the use of force or violence, and that he received the requisite 90 days of treatment within the year prior to his hearing before the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH). We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2010, appellant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and was sentenced to state prison. After the BPH determined that appellant

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

was an MDO subject to involuntary treatment as a condition of his parole, appellant filed a petition for hearing and waived his right to a jury trial. Dr. Phylissa Kwarnter, a clinical psychologist at Atascadero State Hospital (ASH), testified at the hearing. Dr. Kwartner interviewed appellant and spoke with his treatment team. The doctor also reviewed appellant's medical records, his prior MDO evaluations, and his probation report regarding the commitment offense. Based on this information, Dr. Kwartner opined that appellant met the criteria for MDO treatment. Appellant suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, which qualifies as a serious mental disorder under the MDO law. Appellant began requiring treatment in 1969, when he was 18 years old. He has been hospitalized in state facilities on 23 separate occasions. His symptoms include paranoid delusions, conspiracy theories, disorganized thoughts, rambling and tangential speech, catatonia, agitation, and poor impulse control. He has been found incompetent to stand trial on six separate occasions. Based on her review of the probation report regarding appellant's assault with a deadly weapon conviction, Dr. Kwartner concluded that appellant's mental illness was at least an aggravating factor in his commission of the offense. Appellant started a fire at a bus station, then threw burning debris at an employee and peace officers. The debris struck the employee, burning his left hand and singeing off his eyebrows. Appellant demonstrated his paranoia by suggesting that he threw the debris to protect himself. Dr. Kwartner opined that appellant's mental illness was not in remission as of the date of the BPH hearing. Appellant admitted he was exhibiting signs of his illness several months after the hearing. The day prior to the hearing, a psychiatrist noted that appellant was guarded and irritable. Since the hearing he has been aggressive, irritable, and agitated and has been removed from two group therapy sessions. The doctor also opined that appellant's mental illness could not be kept in remission without treatment because he refuses to take his prescribed medications or follow his treatment plan. Dr. Kwartner opined that appellant had received at least 90 days of treatment during the year prior to his BPH hearings. She reached this conclusion based