People v. Villaneda CA2/5

Filed 1/3/23 P. v. Villaneda CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B319740

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. v. No. ZM005312)

ROBERT VILLANEDA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ronald O. Kaye, Judge. Dismissed. Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 1987, Robert Villaneda (defendant) attacked his father with an ax and a pick, wounding him in the head, back, and shoulder. At the time of the attack, defendant was paranoid (believing his family was conspiring against him) and experiencing command auditory hallucinations to attack his father. Defendant was tried on a charge of attempted murder, found not guilty by reason of insanity, and committed to Patton State Hospital (Patton) in 1989. In 2003, defendant was discharged from Patton into a conditional release program (Program). For the next 13 years, defendant remained in various Program outpatient facilities. In 2016, defendant displayed increased mental health symptoms and bizarre behavior, despite a number of adjustments to his medication. (Among other things, defendant accused another Program client of clogging the facility’s community toilet and causing plumbing problems at the homes of defendant’s brother and one of the facility’s staff members.) In view of defendant’s psychiatric decompensation and paranoid ideation, and the resulting danger to the Program community, defendant was readmitted to Patton. In 2021, the District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles filed a petition to extend defendant’s commitment at Patton (Pen. Code, § 1026.5(b)). After defendant waived his right to a jury, the trial court held a bench trial where three witnesses, all experts, testified. The two experts for the People, one of whom had evaluated defendant on two prior occasions (in 2018 and 2020), found defendant still suffered from the same symptoms of mental illness as at the time of the commitment offense and, despite decades of therapy, possessed “little” to “no insight” into his illness, risk of violence, and need for treatment. Defendant’s