Opinion
C097961
11-20-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MELISSA GAY GREENHAGEN, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Super. Ct. No. SCSC-CRF-2001-1693)
Duarte, Acting P. J.
This is an appeal by defendant Melissa Gay Greenhagen from an order of the Siskiyou County Superior Court recommitting her to Napa State Hospital as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) pursuant to the Mentally Disordered Offender Act (Pen. Code, § 2960 et seq.) (MDOA).
Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Appointed counsel filed a brief according to Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529. Defendant was advised of the nature of counsel's brief, as well as her right to file a supplemental brief, which she has done. We have no independent obligation to review the record for error in this appeal from an MDO recommitment determination. (People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, 312.) Accordingly, we limit our review in this matter to the issues raised in defendant's supplemental brief. (People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1040.) Having reviewed these arguments, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On September 18, 2002, defendant resolved a 14-count criminal information by pleading guilty to five counts of arson for which she received a prison sentence of eight years.
On February 16, 2006, defendant was committed to the California Department of Mental Health as an MDO under the provisions of section 2962. On January 9, 2009, a jury found she was an MDO pursuant to section 2970 et seq., and the trial court recommitted her to Patton State Hospital for one year. (§ 2972, subd. (c).) She was recommitted in one-year increments from February 2010 through February 2023 and was transferred to Napa State Hospital in 2014.
Napa State Hospital included in its July 26, 2022, request for renewal the recommendation that the district attorney file a petition for recommitment alleging defendant remained an MDO because she had a severe mental disorder that was not in remission, and by reason of that disorder she presented a danger of physical harm to others. In response to this request, on August 25, 2022, the district attorney filed a petition seeking defendant's commitment for continued involuntary treatment. (§ 2970, et seq.) Defendant waived her right to a jury trial, and a court trial was held on the recommitment petition. At that hearing, Dr. Rachel Powers testified as an expert in recommitments under section 2972. Powers testified that defendant suffers from schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. This condition is a severe mental disorder that impairs defendant's thoughts, perception of reality, emotional process, and judgment. As a result, it impairs and influences her perception of reality and her choices and behavior. Defendant further suffers from auditory hallucinations and delusional beliefs.
Defendant's mental illness was not in remission. In the past year, she attempted to poke another patient's eyes out, mistakenly believing she could use the eyes herself. Defendant also verbally threatened physical harm to others, including threats to maim and kill. She had not voluntarily complied with her treatment, necessitating an order for involuntary medication, which had been extended, but then allowed to expire.
Defendant had a history of discontinuing her medications, including those she had requested. If she stopped taking her medication, her condition would decompensate quickly, resulting in an increase of hallucinations, delusional beliefs, and aggressive behavior. Because defendant did not believe she was mentally ill, the only way to keep her compliant with her treatment plan was to keep her at the hospital. If she left the hospital, even while taking her medication, she would present a substantial risk of danger of physical harm to others. Therefore, Dr. Powers opined defendant met the conditions for recommitment.
Defendant testified, and in doing so exhibited symptoms of her mental illness. For example, she testified (incorrectly) that she was studying to be a journalist, had a law degree, and wrote unspecified materials for politicians, as well as for Playboy Magazine, the Weed Press, and Grandma's Brownies. She testified that she wrote the plan for a casino and had casinos all over the world, but people had been stealing her money. Further, she was kidnapped by the Ku Klux Klan as a child and had been hearing both Klan members and "blacks" on the "audio" she had been listening to. Defendant admitted she had refused to take her medication and complained the doctor had practiced "voodoo" on her. Defendant denied that she was delusional, explaining she had a head injury and ear problems. She requested that if she was recommitted, she not be placed on the criminal side of Napa State Hospital.
Ultimately, the trial court determined beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant suffered from a severe mental illness, her mental illness was not in remission, and because of that illness, she represented a substantial danger of physical harm to others. Outpatient treatment would not be appropriate. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for continued involuntary treatment as an MDO and recommitted defendant for treatment at Napa State Hospital or any other hospital designated by the State Department of State Hospitals. Defendant's new commitment will expire on February 15, 2024. Defendant timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed defendant's supplemental brief and understand her arguments primarily as challenging her placement within Napa State Hospital. She asserts she should be placed in a civil unit away from patients who have pleaded guilty by reason of insanity. She also submitted handwritten annotations to the MDOA, suggesting changes thereto. She faults her trial attorney for failing to obtain a "placement" hearing and her appellate attorney for not subpoenaing documents as directed.
Defendant's assorted arguments do not challenge the propriety of the trial court's recommitment order, which is the subject of this appeal. Moreover, we perceive no ineffective assistance of counsel. (People v. Mickel (2016) 2 Cal.5th 181, 188; People v. M.H. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 299, 306.) As recognized by the court, the propriety of the hospital's decision to house defendant in any particular treatment unit within the state hospital system is outside of the purview of the section 2972 determination.
DISPOSITION
The recommitment order is affirmed.
We concur: Renner, J., Krause, J.