P. v. Townsend CA3

Filed 6/17/13 P. v. Townsend CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C071855

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 07F04974)

v.

REBIO TOWNSEND,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2008, defendant pled no contest to possession of a destructive device (a Molotov cocktail) and admitted previously being convicted of a strike offense and serving a term in prison. Consistent with his plea, defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of two years and eight months in state prison. Defendant‟s custody was later transferred from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to the Department of Mental Health and in June 2011, the People petitioned to extend defendant‟s commitment as a mentally disordered offender pursuant to Penal Code section 2970. Those proceedings were continued until June 2012 when the People filed a second petition to extend defendant‟s commitment for an additional year.

1

In support of the People‟s second petition, they submitted the affidavit of Jeanne Garcia, M.D., medical director at Atascadero State Hospital. In Dr. Garcia‟s opinion, defendant “qualifies for continued treatment . . . in that his severe mental disorder is not in remission and cannot be kept in remission.” Attached to Dr. Garcia‟s affidavit is a forensic report dated March 16, 2012, prepared by Brandi Mathews, Ph.D. To prepare her report, Dr. Mathews reviewed defendant‟s medical records and numerous legal documents. Dr. Mathews also consulted with defendant‟s treating psychologist. She intended to interview defendant but “treatment staff indicated [defendant was exhibiting] recent increased levels of agitation . . . .” Thus, Dr. Mathews did not interview defendant. As noted by Dr. Mathews, defendant was previously diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. Based on her review of defendant‟s historical information and current “presentation” at Atascadero, Dr. Mathews agreed with that diagnosis. In support of her opinion, Dr. Mathews cataloged defendant‟s “well-documented” history of psychiatric treatment dating back to defendant‟s first psychotic break in 1978. She described defendant‟s history of “both psychotic and mood symptoms,” which include, among other symptoms: auditory hallucinations, grandiosity, decreased need for sleep, and paranoia. According to defendant‟s medical records, the symptoms of his “severe mental disorder are not controlled by medication and/or psychosocial support.” By reviewing defendant‟s recent progress notes at Atascadero, Dr. Mathews learned that defendant continued to exhibit “significant mood symptoms.” She noted defendant continued to demonstrate paranoia and “mood lability.” Other progress notes reported defendant exhibiting “increased agitation” and irritability. Defendant was further described in the progress notes as “[using] loud speech, pacing the unit, and being intrusive with others.” Based on her review of defendant‟s records, and the reporting of defendant‟s “overt symptoms,” Dr. Mathews concluded that defendant‟s “severe mental