People v. Ginnett CA2/6

Filed 10/3/23 P. v. Ginnett 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B325631 (Super. Ct. No. 22PT-00670) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

MARK GINNETT,

Defendant and Appellant.

The Board of Parole Hearings (Board) determined appellant Mark Ginnett qualified as an offender with a mental health disorder (OMHD; Pen. Code, §§ 2970, 2972).1 Appellant filed a petition contesting this determination. He appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition and committing him to treatment claiming there was insufficient evidence. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant injured a correctional officer during an altercation in jail. He pleaded guilty to three felony counts arising from the incident and received a five year prison

1 Unlabeled statutory cites are to the Penal Code.

sentence. As his release date neared, the Board determined appellant qualified as an OMHD. Appellant contested the determination by filing a petition and order for appointment of counsel and hearing (petition). (§ 2966, subd. (b).) The trial court denied the petition and ordered appellant committed to the Department of State Hospitals for treatment under section 2962. DISCUSSION Committing a prisoner to treatment as an OMHD requires proving, among other things, a “severe mental health disorder was one of the causes of, or was an aggravating factor in, the commission of a crime for which the prisoner was sentenced to prison.” (§ 2962, subd. (b).) 2 The crime committed must meet two criteria: the defendant received a determinate sentence and that it was one of the specified crimes, which includes a crime in which the prisoner used force or violence, or caused serious bodily injury. (Id., subd. (e).) Appellant does not challenge that the crime for which he was allegedly convicted, battery on a peace officer with the infliction of great bodily injury (§§ 243, subd. (c)(2)(1) and 12022.7, subd. (a)(1)), would qualify him for commitment. He instead contends the People’s evidence was not “legally sufficient to actually establish the conviction occurred and a sentence was imposed.” He argues the People needed to produce an abstract of judgment or another “acceptable official