Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo, No. F435165, Charles S. Crandall, Judge
Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Keith H. Borjon, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, A. Scott Hayward, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
GILBERT, P.J.
Jason Godwin appeals an order determining him to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO), and committing him to the Department of Mental Health for treatment. (Pen. Code, § 2962 et seq.) We affirm.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 7, 2003, during his imprisonment for another crime, Godwin threw human waste on a correctional officer. (§ 4501.1.) The San Bernardino County Superior Court sentenced him to a prison term of three years.
On July 15, 2009, the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) determined that Godwin was an MDO pursuant to the criteria of section 2962. As a condition of parole, it required him to accept treatment from the Department of Mental Health. Godwin filed a petition pursuant to section 2966, subdivision (b) to contest the decision of the Board. A court trial followed.
Doctor Brandi Mathews, a forensic psychologist employed by Atascadero State Hospital, testified that she interviewed Godwin and reviewed his hospital records. She opined that he suffers from schizoaffective disorder-bipolar type, characterized by auditory hallucinations, emotional lability, pressured speech, and grandiose delusions, among other symptoms. Godwin had reported that he heard voices instructing him to harm himself and that he saw spirits. He had also claimed to be God or a prophet. Mathews testified that Godwin has a long history of psychiatric treatment, including prescribed psychotropic medications, and a prior MDO commitment.
Doctor Mathews opined that Godwin met the statutory criteria of section 2962. In particular, she testified that at the time of the Board hearing, he manifested overt symptoms of his mental disorder and displayed significant mood lability. He also had threatened hospital staff and, on two occasions, refused medication. Mathews stated that despite psychotropic medication, Godwin's severe mental disorder is not stable.
In particular, Mathews opined that Godwin's severe mental disorder was an aggravating factor in the commission of the underlying offense. She stated that at the time of the offense, Godwin was housed in and being treated in the mental health section of the prison. Following the offense, he reported auditory hallucinations and displayed tangential speech. In a psychological interview, he stated that he "was crazy" at the time of the offense.
At trial, Godwin testified that he has a severe mental disorder and acknowledged the necessity for his psychotropic medication. He denied holding a belief that he is God or a prophet. Godwin also explained that insufficient medication allowed his symptoms and violent behavior.
The trial court determined that Godwin met the requirements of section 2962, subdivision (d)(1) beyond a reasonable doubt. It denied his petition and ordered him committed to the Department of Mental Health for treatment. In ruling, the trial judge stated that although Godwin "seems to be very well adjusted right now, " he met the section 2962 criteria as of the date of the Board hearing.
Godwin appeals and challenges the evidence supporting the finding that his severe mental disorder was an aggravating factor in the underlying criminal offense.
DISCUSSION
Godwin argues that Doctor Mathews did not offer testimony tending to establish that his mental illness caused or aggravated the underlying offense. He adds that there may be many motives leading an inmate to commit a section 4501.1 offense.
In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support an order made in MDO proceedings, we review the entire record to determine if reasonable and credible evidence supports the decision of the trier of fact. (People v. Clark (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1082-1083; People v. Miller (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 913, 919.) We view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of the order. (Ibid.) We do not reweigh the evidence nor do we substitute our decision for that of the trier of fact. (Clark, at pp. 1082-1083.)
Sufficient evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom support the trial court's finding. (§ 2962, subd. (b) [severe mental disorder must be a cause of or an aggravating factor in commission of underlying crime].) Doctor Mathews testified that Godwin's severe mental disorder was "not an aggravating or causative factor" regarding a different criminal offense (2002 battery), but opined "it was a factor in the [underlying section 4501.1] offense." She then stated her reasons, including Godwin's housing in the mental health section of the prison, his psychological treatment at the time, and his auditory hallucinations and symptomology following the offense. Godwin also stated that he "was crazy at that time" when interviewed regarding the offense. The trial court weighed the evidence and drew the reasonable inference that Godwin's severe mental disorder either caused or was an aggravating factor in the commission of the underlying offense. We do not reweigh the evidence, draw different inferences, or substitute our decision for that of the trier of fact. (People v. Clark, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1082-1083.)
The commitment order is affirmed.
We concur: YEGAN, J., PERREN, J.