P. v. Tate CA2/6

Filed 6/20/13 P. v. Tate CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B246319 (Super. Ct. No. F481951) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

ANTONIAL TATE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Antonial Tate appeals a judgment committing him to the California Department of State Hospitals (CDSH) for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) (Pen. Code, § 2962) following his commitment offense for forcible rape. We conclude, among other things, that substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that Tate's mental disorder was a cause or an aggravating factor in his commitment offense. We affirm. FACTS Tate filed a petition to challenge a Board of Parole Hearings determination that he met the requirements for commitment as an MDO. (Pen. Code, § 2962.) He waived his right to a jury trial and the court appointed counsel to represent him. At trial, Joseph Moreno, a psychologist, testified that Tate suffers from a "schizoaffective disorder" - a severe mental disorder. Tate has a history of "psychotic symptoms, auditory and visual hallucinations, paranoid and grandiose delusions." He has

"mood disorder symptoms such as depression and mania." Tate had been in treatment for his disorder for 90 days or more within the year prior to his "parole or release date." His symptoms are not in remission because, as of August 2012, he "was delusional, paranoid and hallucinating." Tate's commitment offense for forcible rape was committed in 2000. Tate was convicted in 2010. Moreno testified that his "mental disorder was at least an associated if not causal factor in the crime." Tate "represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others." He believes rape is acceptable conduct. Brandi Mathews, a psychologist at Atascadero State Hospital, testified that as of July 31, 2000, while in custody, Tate was "clearly symptomatic of a severe mental disorder." She said, "it was quite evident he was psychotic." But there was no indication of "bizarre behavior" or "delusional statements" at the time he committed the rape. The crime was "quite goal-directed and suggests criminal behavior as far as him entering through the window; raping; . . . unplugging the phone first, which shows some organization," and covering the victim's face so she could not identify him. On redirect examination, Mathews testified there were no remarks in the police report that Tate made delusional comments during the crime, but "[i]t's possible" that he had "been under the delusion" that he had "some relationship" with the rape victim. The trial court noted there was a conflict between Moreno and Mathews on whether Tate's mental disorder was a cause or an aggravating factor in the rape. It rejected Mathews' testimony on that issue and found all the elements for an MDO commitment were established. DISCUSSION Substantial Evidence Tate contends there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that his mental disorder "caused or aggravated his offense." We disagree. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, "[w]e consider the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment and must affirm if there is any substantial evidence supporting the [trial court's] finding." (People v. Valdez (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th