From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Givan

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jan 23, 2012
F061215 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2012)

Opinion

F061215 Super. Ct. No. CF89408307

01-23-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEFFREY DEAN GIVAN, Defendant and Appellant.

Eloy I. Trujillo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

OPINION


THE COURT

Before Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Poochigian, J.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Hilary A. Chittick, Judge.

Eloy I. Trujillo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant, Jeffrey Dean Givan, was committed to a state hospital for the care and treatment of the mentally disordered, pursuant to Penal Code section 1026, subdivision (a), in July 1990, following findings, in a Fresno County proceeding, that he was not guilty by reason of insanity of charges of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and resisting, delaying or obstructing a peace officer (§ 148), and again in June 2006, following a finding, in a Napa County proceeding, that he was not guilty by reason of insanity of a single count of violating section 245, subdivision (a)(1).

All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
--------

In the Fresno County proceeding, appellant's commitment was set to expire April 30, 2010.

In October 2009, the Fresno County District Attorney filed a petition for extension of commitment under section 1026.5, subdivision (b), in which it was alleged that appellant, by reason of a mental disease, defect, or disorder, still represented a substantial danger of physical harm to others.

After appellant waived his right to a jury trial, a court trial ensued. At the conclusion of the trial, the court found the allegation of the petition true and ordered appellant's commitment extended to April 30, 2012. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellant's appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We affirm. Appellant has not responded to this court's invitation to submit additional briefing.

FACTS

Kaiser Sultana, M.D., testified to the following. She is a staff psychiatrist at Napa State Hospital (NSH), where she treated appellant for approximately five and one-half months, beginning in April 2010. Appellant is mentally ill. He suffers from schizoaffective disorder and polysubstance dependence. Among other medications, he takes Risperdal, which "will control his psychotic symptoms." However, based on how appellant had conducted himself in the past when released from the hospital, Dr. Sultana "doubt[ed]" he would take his medications if he was released from the hospital and was "living by himself in the community without any supervision." Appellant was "making progress" but he displayed "aggressive, threatening behaviors" during his current hospitalization. At one point, Dr. Sultana, when asked to make a "clinical assessment" as to whether appellant was "dangerous," testified that based on appellant's "history and record" and his "current course of hospitalization," she believed appellant "is at moderate risk ...." Later, at the close of her direct examination testimony, she opined that appellant "poses a substantial danger of serious physical harm to others at this time."

Matthew Blagys, a clinical psychologist employed by NSH, testified that he has "work[ed] with" appellant at NSH "over a number of weeks and months since he's been on our unit." Dr. Blagys "believe[s] that [appellant] has schizoaffective disorder bipolar type." He stated that appellant had engaged in approximately 25 incidents of "verbal aggression" while on the unit. The psychologist indicated that based on his "direct observations" of appellant, as well as "discussions" with him, appellant "pose[s] a substantial threat to others ...." Dr. Blagys also opined that if appellant was released from NSH, "at some point he would probably stop taking his medication again." Although appellant had been "compliant" with his medication regimen at NSH, "his history isn't good with maintaining his medication and treatment course once out in the community."

Mark Duarte, a licensed clinical social worker, testified to the following. He is the community program director of the Central California Conditional Release Program (CONREP), a program that provides outpatient treatment and supervision to persons "referred by the Superior Court to treat and supervise in the community." Appellant has been released on the CONREP program multiple times. Each release ended in appellant's outpatient status being revoked. The first release was revoked for appellant's "non-compliance with his [medication] regimen and becoming psychotic." When released a second time appellant "wasn't able to sleep for a week," was "very uncomfortable in the community," and "begged to go back to the hospital." On his third release, appellant stopped taking his medications, and was picked up by police walking across the Bay Bridge. On his last release, more than five years ago, appellant behaved in a "bizarre" manner in the board and care home where he was placed, locking himself in the bathroom, shouting obscenities and lighting his hair on fire with a cigarette lighter. During appellant's most recent hospitalization at NSH, Duarte has had numerous "interviews" with appellant. Duarte opined that appellant was "not ready" for release on the CONREP program because he "has a habit of sabotaging his treatment plan just prior to getting the recommendation for outpatient."

Appellant's sister testified that if appellant was released on outpatient status she could talk to him in person and by telephone, "check up on him," and try to make sure he took his medication. Appellant's brother testified that he too would be able to "call him, check up on him" and assist him in what ways he could. Two nurses at NSH also testified on appellant's behalf. Each testified that although appellant got into verbal altercations, he (the nurse) did not see appellant physically assault anyone.

DISCUSSION

Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Givan

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jan 23, 2012
F061215 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2012)
Case details for

People v. Givan

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEFFREY DEAN GIVAN, Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Date published: Jan 23, 2012

Citations

F061215 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2012)