From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Kyles

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Feb 16, 2012
2d Crim. No. B233215 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2012)

Opinion

2d Crim. No. B233215

02-16-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDREW KYLES, Defendant and Appellant.

Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, fr Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Bass, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Eric J. Kohm, Deputy Attorney General, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. No. F457142)

(San Luis Obispo County)

Andrew Kyles appeals from the judgment following a court trial in which he was determined to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen. Code, § 2960 et seq.) Appellant claims the evidence does not support the finding that his severe mental disorder was a cause of or an aggravating factor in the commission of the commitment offense. (§ 2962, subd. (b).) We affirm.

All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Factual and Procedural History

In 2008, appellant was panhandling outside a grocery store, became agitated, yelled at a customer and his wife, and choked and threw the 83-year-old man to the ground, fracturing the man's pelvis. Appellant pled guilty to battery with serious injury (§ 243, subd. (a)) and was sentenced to four years state prison.

On February 10, 2011, the Board of Prison Terms determined that appellant was an MDO and committed him to Atascadero State Hospital for treatment. (§ 2962, subds. (a)-(d).) Appellant petitioned the superior court for trial and waived jury. (§ 2966, subd. (b).)

It was uncontroverted that appellant suffered from Bipolar I Disorder -manic, severe, with psychotic features manifested by agitation, irritability, auditory hallucinations, dysphoric mood, paranoia, and prior psychiatric hospitalizations and treatment. Doctor Joe Dubruin opined that appellant met all the MDO criteria and posed a substantial danger of physical harm to others by reason of the severe mental disorder. While a patient at Atascadero State Hospital, appellant hit a peer in the face during a basketball game and threatened staff members. Appellant was not treatment compliant and subject to a Keyhea involuntary medication order. (See Keyhea v. Rushen (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 526, 542; In re Qawi (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1, 27.)

The six criteria for an MDO commitment are: the prisoner: (1) has a severe mental disorder; (2) used force or violence in committing the underlying offense; (3) had a mental disorder that caused or was an aggravating factor in the commission of the underlying offense; (4) the disorder is not in remission or capable of being kept in remission without treatment; (5) the prisoner was treated for the disorder for at least 90 days in the year prior to his parole or release; and (6) the prisoner poses a serious danger of physical harm to others by reason of the disorder. (§ 2962, subd. (d)(1); People v. Clark (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1075-1076.)

With respect to the commitment offense, Doctor Debruin opined that the severe mental disorder was an aggravating factor in the commission of MDO offense. After appellant was arrested and booked in county jail, he was given Abilify, an antipsychotic medication to treat psychotic behavior.

Doctor Michelle Reed, a defense expert, opined that the battery could have been precipitated by drugs. Appellant had a history of abusing methamphetamine. Doctor Reed opined that it was difficult to say one way or another whether the offense was due to a severe mental disorder or appellant's drug abuse.

The trial court found that the "severe mental disorder was at least an aggravating factor. [¶] The testimony of Dr. Reed about the issue of substance abuse- induced psychosis was that it generally lasts a limited period of time. . . . [¶] If this had been a single occurrence with no further . . . mental health issues, then I would be more likely to be persuaded it was simply substance abuse and didn't have anything to do with a severe mental disorder. But in [appellant's] case, in the subsequent period of time, he demonstrated acute symptoms consistent with his severe mental disorder of bipolar, manic. Those symptoms have been ongoing and have necessitated his being placed on a Keyhea order. [¶] I'm specifically relying also upon the comments that were made by the victim's wife that at the time of the offense, [appellant] was rambling and incoherent; by Dr. Debruin's testimony that the commitment offense was excessive in nature, irrational; [and] the police report that indicated that there did not seem to be a precipitating event, that the assault was essentially unprovoked."

Aggravating Factor

Appellant argues that the evidence is conflicting on whether his substance abuse or mental disorder was the cause of the underlying offense. The MDO statute, however, requires only that the severe mental disorder be "one of the causes of or was an aggravating factor in the commission of the crime for which the prisoner was sentenced to prison." (§ 2962, subd. (b).)

Doctor Debruin's testimony that the severe mental disorder was an aggravating factor in the commission of the MDO offense was corroborated by several factors. First, appellant had a history of mental illness evidenced by prior psychiatric hospitalizations. Second, the battery was unprovoked, irrational and very excessive. The victim's wife reported that appellant was incoherent and rambling. After appellant was arrested and booked, he was given Abilify, an antipsychotic medication.

Although appellant had a history of abusing methamphetamine, appellant told Doctor Debruin that he had not used methamphetamine for a week before the battery. Appellant told another doctor (Doctor Moreno), that he was not on medication at the time of the offense and, had he been on his current medications, that offense would have never happened.

Conclusion

In a substantial evidence case, we view the evidence and draw reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of the MDO order. (People v. Martin (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 970, 975.) The trial court may weigh the reasons given by an expert witness for his or her opinion and may accept some reasons and reject others as was done here. (Kennemur v. State of California (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907, 923.) We may not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. (People v. Clark, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1083; People v. Pace (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 795, 798.)

The evidence amply supports the trial court's finding that the severe mental disorder was a cause or an aggravating favor in the commission of the MDO offense. (People v. Valdez (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1013, 1018; People v. Bowers (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 870, 879 [single psychiatric opinion constitutes substantial evidence].)

The judgment (order of commitment) is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J. We concur:

GILBERT, P.J.

COFFEE, J.

Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
--------

Jacquelyn H. Duffy, Judge


Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, fr Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Bass, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Eric J. Kohm, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


Summaries of

People v. Kyles

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Feb 16, 2012
2d Crim. No. B233215 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2012)
Case details for

People v. Kyles

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDREW KYLES, Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

Date published: Feb 16, 2012

Citations

2d Crim. No. B233215 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2012)