Opinion
D074823
03-02-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.P., Defendant and Appellant.
Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski and Brendon W. Marshall, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. MH114706) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Margie G. Woods, Judge. Affirmed. Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski and Brendon W. Marshall, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
M.P. appeals after the court denied him relief from an order precluding him from possessing firearms for five years after his release from a three-day hold for a psychiatric evaluation under section 5150. (§ 8103, subd. (f).) The court found the People met their burden to show he would not be likely to use firearms in a safe and lawful manner. (§ 8103, subd. (f)(6).) M.P. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support this factual conclusion. We affirm.
We use initials to assure defendant's statutory privacy rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5325.1, subd. (b); People v. Jason K. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1545, 1549, fn. 1 (Jason K.).) All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. --------
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Background
In early February 2018, 30-year-old M.P., a military veteran, went to a hospital emergency room complaining of anxiety, insomnia, and suicidal thoughts. At the time, he was heavily intoxicated. He was discharged later that evening when he became sober. The discharge summary said he was "psychiatrically clear for discharge at this time, however, [he] remains at a chronically elevated risk for self-harm with psychiatric illness and continuing substance abuse. MODIFIED risk factors for self-harm include intoxication and aggression. He is requesting to go home, and no criteria currently met for involuntary psychiatric hold."
Six days later, on February 10, M.P. went to his therapist appointment. When he returned home, he drank alcohol, got into an argument with his wife, and again had suicidal thoughts. He called a crisis hotline, while holding a paring knife to his femoral artery. The responding police officers determined he was a danger to himself or others, and took him to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation/treatment under their section 5150 authority.
At the hospital, M.P. said the therapy session earlier that day "increased his distress levels." He was diagnosed with alcohol use disorder, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The hospital placed a "high risk for suicide" note in his medical chart. He was released three days later on February 13.
Before his discharge, M.P. was advised of the law prohibiting him from owning/possessing firearms for five years and his right to request a hearing to obtain relief from this prohibition. (§ 8103, subd. (f)(3).) Nine days later, on February 22, M.P. petitioned to restore his firearm rights. The district attorney opposed the motion. The court conducted two evidentiary hearings: one in June 2018 and one in October 2018.
June 2018 Hearing
At the outset of the first hearing, the court said the district attorney had the "burden to prove that it would not be likely that [M.P.] would use a firearm in a safe and lawful manner . . . ." (See § 8103, subd. (f)(6).) The court then stated it had received and reviewed M.P.'s confidential medical records of his February 2018 hospitalization. With the parties' agreement, the court said it would consider these records and the testimony at the hearing to reach its factual conclusions.
M.P. and his wife testified at the hearing. According to this testimony, M.P. served in the military from 2007 until he was discharged in 2015. In 2017, he was diagnosed with PTSD. On the day of the section 5150 hold, M.P. went to his therapist appointment and then drank about four glasses of whiskey. After arguing with his wife, he had suicidal thoughts as he held the knife to his femoral artery. He testified it was unlikely he could have seriously hurt himself because the knife was small.
Pertaining to alcohol use, M.P. testified he has had a drinking problem for the past 13 years, since he was about 16 years old. But he said he has not had any alcohol since his February 10 hospital admission four months earlier. He said he has stayed sober by keeping busy, focusing on his school work, and officiating at youth sports. When asked whether he attends any alcohol prevention programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), he said he goes to his therapist (a nurse practitioner, the same therapist he was seeing before he was placed on the section 5150 hold). He said he currently sees the nurse practitioner "about once every two weeks."
M.P. acknowledged that he continues to suffer from PTSD, including experiencing anxiety, nightmares, and night terrors. He indicated the PTSD began about 10 years earlier when he was deployed with a friend, and his friend died in his arms. He also admitted that when he gets intoxicated he becomes aggressive and upset and could be at risk for self-harm, but said he intends to stay sober. He denied he remains at risk for self-harm, psychiatric illness, or continuing substance abuse. He said he called the crisis line merely as a cry for "help." He explained that when he was in the military he did not feel he could talk about his problems or express his anger or grief, but he is now learning how to do so.
M.P.'s wife testified that she has known M.P. since 2010. M.P. previously owned handguns, but they have not had a handgun or any other firearm in the home since 2012. She said that when M.P. has handled firearms in her presence, he has always done so in a safe manner. She said she has never observed M.P. having any issues with firearms. She also said that he has never been physically abusive with her.
Court's Initial Ruling
After the parties presented the evidence summarized above, the court stated that on the record before it, it would find the district attorney met its burden to show M.P. would not be likely to use firearms in a safe and lawful manner. The court reasoned the evidence established M.P. remains at risk when he becomes intoxicated, and there was insufficient basis to find he would remain sober and/or that he could be prevented from engaging in unsafe conduct if he did become intoxicated. The court explained that M.P. has admitted that when he drinks alcohol he can become aggressive and engage in suicidal ideation, and that "using common sense and experience—and the Court has years of experience," it could not discern whether M.P. would stay sober in the future.
The court commended M.P. for being honest and insightful, and in taking positive steps to obtain help and to refrain from drinking alcohol. But the court said that four months of sobriety is an insufficient basis to reach conclusions about the future. The court noted that M.P. was still seeing the same nurse practitioner who he saw on the day when he had his suicidal crisis that led to the section 5150 hold. The court also said, "you can make the argument it was just a little knife, but a lot of damage and death can happen with a little knife. So a firearm is even more dangerous. Imagine you have a child in the house. A firearm is less than a split second and everything changes." The court also observed that M.P. is now taking a powerful drug (lithium) to prevent suicidal thoughts, and said the prescription is a warning sign that he remained at risk for self-harm.
But the court said it was willing to continue the hearing to give M.P. "more time to present additional evidence that could counter what is indicated in the medical records." The court said that at the next hearing M.P. could present evidence of his continuing sobriety and opinions by mental health professionals who have evaluated him after the section 5150 hold.
After M.P. agreed to a continuance, the court scheduled an October 2018 hearing, stating that this would give him sufficient time to "present additional information that could support your position that this [event] was out of character and will never happen again."
October 2018 Hearing
At the outset of the October 2018 hearing, the court asked whether M.P. had any additional evidence, and he responded he did not have any new evidence because "the psychologist I was seeing at that time moved to Maryland and she did not leave any record open for the VA to release to me." Despite the lack of any new evidence, M.P. urged the court to grant his petition because "I'm . . . [i]n school full time, employed full time. I believe this was just an isolated incident."
The court responded that it had provided M.P. with several months to present additional evidence as to the nature of his post-hospitalization mental health treatment and the status of that treatment, and asked M.P. whether he had anything to add, and M.P. responded, "not at this time."
The court then denied M.P.'s petition. The court stated that "on the state of the evidence today," the district attorney met its burden to show M.P. "would not be likely to use a firearm in a safe and lawful manner . . . ."
DISCUSSION
I. Governing Law
Section 5150 permits a person to be taken into custody and detained for 72 hours when there is probable cause he is a danger to himself or others as a result of a mental disorder. (People v. Keil (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 34, 38.) Section 8103, subdivision (f)(1) provides that when a person is admitted into a mental health facility under these sections, the individual cannot own, possess, control, receive, or purchase firearms for five years after release from the facility.
The individual may request a hearing to lift this prohibition. (§ 8103, subd. (f)(3), (5).) The People "bear the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the person would not be likely to use firearms in a safe and lawful manner." (§ 8103, subd. (f)(6); see Jason K., supra, 188 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1554-1559.) Hearsay evidence, including medical records, is admissible at the hearing. (§ 8103, subd. (f)(5).) If the court finds the People have not met their burden, the restriction is removed, and the person shall be entitled to own, possess, control, receive or purchase firearms, unless another legal restriction applies. (§ 8103, subd. (f)(1).)
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
M.P. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's factual conclusion that he would not be likely to use firearms in a safe and lawful manner.
"In reviewing this contention, we apply the substantial evidence standard. [Citation.] We must 'affirm if "substantial evidence supports the court's determination that return of the firearms to appellant would be likely to result in endangering appellant or other persons." ' " [Citation.] In determining whether a court's ruling is supported by substantial evidence, we view the whole record in a light most favorable to the ruling, resolving all evidentiary conflicts and drawing all reasonable inferences supporting the court's decision. [Citation.] If " ' "there is 'substantial evidence,' the appellate court must affirm . . . even if the reviewing justices personally would have ruled differently had they presided over the proceedings below, and even if other substantial evidence would have supported a different result." ' [Citation.]." (Jason K., supra, 188 Cal.App.4th at p. 1553; accord People v. Mary H. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 246, 262.)
The record contains substantial evidence supporting the court's denial of M.P.'s petition. M.P. admitted he has continuing mental health issues resulting from his PTSD, and that if he uses alcohol to excess he is at risk for becoming aggressive and/or suicidal. Although M.P. testified at the initial hearing that he had not consumed any alcohol since the section 5150 hospitalization, the court found this four-month period of sobriety did not negate the likelihood he would resume drinking alcohol and the resulting risk of harm from a firearm. This conclusion was reasonable. The evidence established M.P. had been a heavy drinker for the previous 13 years and continued to suffer from PTSD, and there was no evidence he had any treatment plans to stay sober such as attending AA meetings or other type of alcohol-prevention program. Moreover, M.P. did not repeat his claim of continuing sobriety at the October 2018 hearing.
Additionally, the court had a reasonable basis to find that M.P.'s evidence did not sufficiently rebut the information in the hospital records that he has a continuing elevated risk for self-harm. He was given the opportunity at the October 2018 hearing to present evidence from a mental health professional to show he was no longer at risk for self-harm, but he presented no such evidence, nor did he suggest he was still seeing a mental health professional to address his issues. Instead, he stated only that his prior therapist had moved away and that he was working and going to school. Without the requested additional information, the court had a reasonable basis to find his mental health issues had not sufficiently resolved since his February 2018 hospitalization.
M.P. argues that the court "ignored the facts showing that [he] become[s] suicidal only when he was intoxicated. . . . It is the alcohol rather than the PTSD that triggers the suicidal ideation." This argument that the court misinterpreted the evidence is unsupported. In finding the People had met its burden at the first hearing, the court made clear its finding was based on the evidence showing M.P.'s intoxication could trigger a risk of self-harm and the lack of evidence showing he would be capable of controlling his alcohol intake in the future.
M.P. argues he "is successfully living a sober life, free of suicidal ideation." Although this is one possible interpretation of the evidence, as the finder of fact, the court could reasonably reach a different conclusion, particularly given the lack of evidence submitted at the October 2018 hearings that he no longer consumed alcohol. Alternatively, the court could have reasonably found that that although M.P. may not currently pose a risk, there was an insufficient evidentiary basis to conclude that this would continue during the next several years. We likewise find unpersuasive M.P.'s reliance on his assertions at the June 2018 hearing that he can manage his issues with his prescribed medications. Without any expert testimony supporting these assertions, the court had a reasonable basis to find that the medications would not sufficiently reduce or eliminate the risk that his mental health issues would continue and/or resurface.
M.P. also contends there is no evidence he has ever used a firearm in an unsafe manner. Although this is true, it was not necessary for the People to show a prior unsafe firearm use to meet section 8103, subdivision (f)(6)'s standard. Based on the evidence that M.P. has a history of suicidal ideation and he had suicidal thoughts when he called a crisis line while holding a knife to an artery in his leg, the court could reasonably conclude he would not be safe if he had similar thoughts in the future if there was a gun in the house. The court commented that "in less than a split second" firearm use can change everything, particularly if a child was in the home (the evidence shows the couple has a child together). "[A] single incident leading to a section 5150 commitment can support a section 8103, subdivision (f) finding." (Jason K., supra, 188 Cal.App.4th at p. 1554; see People v. Keil, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at pp. 38-39.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
HALLER, J. WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. AARON, J.