Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. No. JUVIJ9136, Stephen A. Sillman, Judge. (Retired judge of the Monterey Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
HOLLENHORST Acting P.J.
In 1996, defendant and appellant B.J., who was 14 years old at the time, admitted the allegations that he committed a lewd act on a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)) and assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). The court committed him to the California Youth Authority on March 13, 1997. On December 10, 2004, shortly before he was to be released, a petition to extend his commitment was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 1800. The court conducted a hearing and extended the commitment. Following an appeal, this court affirmed the extended commitment in In re Brian J. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 97 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two].)
On June 4, 2007, a second petition to extend defendant’s commitment was filed. The defense moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was untimely filed. The motion was granted. The prosecution filed a writ, which was granted, and the dismissal was reversed. On July 21, 2008, defendant stipulated to being committed for two years. The court ordered that he remain housed at his current facility. However, on August 26, 2008, the court granted his motion to be conditionally released into the community. On August 18, 2009, defendant was arrested on the charge of failing to follow the instructions of the Division of Juvenile Parole Operations. He was detained at West Valley Detention Center, where the Juvenile Parole Board eventually determined that he was a threat to public safety and revoked his parole.
On April 26, 2010, a third petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 1800 to extend defendant’s commitment. He waived his right to a jury trial, and the matter proceeded as a bench trial. On June 10, 2010, the court found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant was a person who was physically dangerous to the public because of his mental or physical deficiency, which caused him to have serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior. The court ordered his commitment to be extended for two years.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal challenging the order. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The facts of the offense are taken from this court’s opinion in In re Brian J., supra, 150 Cal.App.4th 97, 105.
When defendant was 14 years old, he lured an eight-year-old boy into a motor home by offering to show him some magazines. After they got inside the motor home, defendant pushed the boy down, bound his hands and feet together, took his clothes off, and put duct tape across his eyes and mouth. Defendant pressed a knife against the boy’s back and threatened to cut him if he did not “shut up.” Defendant placed his penis in the boy’s mouth and urinated. He then whipped the boy with a belt and a piece of wood and punched him in the stomach twice. The boy begged him to stop, and defendant cut him loose and let him leave.
The Extension Hearing
Sonnette Michelle Caldwell-Barr, a psychologist who worked for the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), testified at the extension hearing on June 9, 2010. Defendant started attending her group therapy sessions on November 17, 2009. She noted one incident when defendant told her he kicked another youth because the youth allegedly threw a pencil at him. On December 15, 2009, defendant threatened to physically harm Dr. Caldwell-Barr because he was not happy with her, after his annual review before the Juvenile Justice Action Committee. At that review, Dr. Caldwell-Barr had recommended that defendant’s commitment be extended because she noticed he was experiencing auditory hallucinations. Dr. Caldwell-Barr had also observed that defendant had delusional thought processes and made up elaborate stories.
Krys Hunter, a clinical psychologist with the DJJ, also testified. She reviewed all of defendant’s DJJ files, medical files, mental health group notes, and case work notes. She determined that defendant had a mental disorder. In making that determination, she performed several tests on defendant. Dr. Hunter performed the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI) test, the Personality Adjustment Inventory (PAI) test, and the Sexual Adjustment Inventory (SAI) test. The MCMI test indicated that defendant had “very significant pathology both in his thinking and his perceptual abilities, as well as his interpersonal relating and behaviors.” The test indicated he had significant issues that required intensive oversight and supervision. The PAI test indicated that defendant had irrationally volatile interactions with people, he assumed people were out to get him, and he had an inability to moderate his volatile, hostile reactions to his environment. The SAI test indicated that defendant was “highly dangerous.” He scored in a problem risk range on a child molest scale, which indicated “probable pedophile tendencies.” Defendant scored in the maximum risk range on the sexual assault scale, which indicated a high probability of rape or sexual assault. It also suggested that he should be considered dangerous and in need of a high level of supervision. He scored in the maximum risk range on the antisocial scale, which meant he was likely to have total disregard for the rights of others, and that he lacked any guilt or remorse for his actions. Defendant scored in the maximum risk range on the judgment scale, as well, which indicated that he was significantly impaired in his judgment and perceptions and in his ability to make appropriate decisions.
Dr. Hunter stated that all of the tests indicated that defendant was likely to be agitated, was easily given to emotional outbursts, and that he had the potential for volatility and aggression. She diagnosed him with schizophrenia, paranoid type, pedophilia, sexual sadism, conduct disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and antisocial personality disorder. She said she based her pedophilia diagnosis on defendant’s statements that he enjoyed what he did to the eight-year-old boy, and he frequently enjoyed masturbating to fantasies of young children. She also noted that when he was on conditional release, he was observed at a movie theater with a backpack full of candy, and children running away from him. She said that having the backpack full of candy was a “very typical pedophile, child molester grooming technique, ” used to get a child to comply with what the molester wants.
Dr. Eduardo Morales, the chief psychiatrist for the DJJ, also testified at the hearing. He interviewed and evaluated defendant and determined that defendant was still quite a risk to reoffend. Defendant told Dr. Morales that, while he was on conditional release, he had a hard time finding a job because most people did not want to hire him after he disclosed the nature of his crime. Defendant said that after one interview, he was so upset that he had to punch and break some windows at the facility, just to release his anger. Dr. Morales diagnosed defendant with pedophilia and antisocial personality disorder.
Upon consideration of the evidence, testimony, opinions rendered, observations of defendant, and interactions with defendant, the court found that, beyond a reasonable doubt, defendant was a person who was physically dangerous to the public because of his mental or physical deficiency, disorder, or abnormality, which caused him to have serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior. The court found the opinions of the doctors credible. The court was concerned about defendant’s ability to control his dangerous behavior and particularly noted the incidents when he threatened female staff, kicked a peer, punched a window out of anger, and offered candy at the theater, in the context of grooming victims. The court concluded that there was a serious risk that defendant would reoffend if not committed, and it ordered defendant’s commitment to be extended.
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth the facts and procedural history, raising no specific issues, and requesting this court conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: RICHLI J., KING J.