Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. INF049202. Lawrence W. Fry, Judge.
Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ, P.J.
Defendant and appellant Lewistine Farrar appeals her recommitment as a mentally disordered offender. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 10, 2009, the People filed a petition for continued involuntary treatment pursuant to Penal Code section 2970. On June 23, 2010, defendant waived her right to a jury trial. On June 28, 2010, the matter was tried before the court. A psychiatrist who had been treating defendant since August 2009 testified about the nature and extent of defendant’s severe mental disorder. Based on his personal observations, which included a number of specific examples of defendant’s behavior during treatment, the treating psychiatrist said he believed defendant “represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others” because of her mental disorder. He recommended continued involuntary treatment.
A psychologist who was appointed by the court to conduct an evaluation of defendant testified that defendant did not show any overt signs or symptoms of her mental disorder when he examined her on May 28, 2010. For the most part, he believed her condition was controlled by medication and she was suitable for placement in an outpatient treatment program. His opinion was that defendant does not represent a substantial risk of physical harm to others. However, he also expressed some concerns about defendant’s suitability when advised of a recent incident involving violence, which was not included in the report he reviewed by the treating psychiatrist. The court expressed concern about the psychologist’s credibility given all of the facts and circumstances.
Based on the evidence, the court concluded defendant suffers from a severe mental disorder, which is not in remission. The court also found defendant represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others if she is not confined to a mental health facility. The court found defendant could not be treated safely or effectively in the community. As a result, the court granted the People’s petition and ordered defendant recommitted to the custody of Patton State Hospital.
DISCUSSION
On July 6, 2010, defendant filed a notice of appeal and we appointed counsel to represent her. 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 a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record. On January 18, 2011, we offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which she has not done. We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: HOLLENHORST, J., McKINSTER, J.