State Dept. of State Hsopitals v. R.C. CA5

Filed 8/18/23 State Dept. of State Hsopitals v. R.C. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS, F085696

Petitioner and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CEPR01444)

v. OPINION R.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Brian M. Arax, Judge. Linda J. Zachritz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Petitioner and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and DeSantos, J.

R.C. is a patient civilly committed under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.), committed at the State Department of State Hospitals (DSH) at Coalinga. DSH petitioned for an order compelling involuntary medical treatment of R.C. for a “severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction.” The petition was granted and R.C. appeals. R.C.’s counsel has outlined the relevant facts pursuant to Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529. R.C. was notified of the nature of the brief filed by his appellate counsel and afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief. He submitted four documents in this case since that time. In those documents he: (1) contends doctors unlawfully implanted an experimental device in his body which allows remote control of his thoughts and actions, but he is nevertheless sane; (2) claims that no attorney represents him and asks what recourse is available; (3) claims his attorney did not contact him, that he was muted at the hearing on the petition, and that “[t]he ugly one” who controls him limited his mental capacity to respond in this case; and (4) contends that his attorney has not contacted him, that the incompetency proceedings were procedurally flawed because he was muted during the hearing, and he was not adjudged incompetent and therefore retains his right to refuse medical care. The People filed no responsive brief. Finding that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist, we dismiss R.C.’s appeal. BACKGROUND On May 8, 2007, R.C. was committed to DSH Coalinga pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 6604. On December 6, 2022, DSH filed a petition1 to compel R.C. to submit to involuntary medical treatment for severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction by