Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County Super. Ct. No. F403744 of San Luis Obispo Jac A. Crawford, Judge
Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Herbert S. Tetef, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
GILBERT, P.J.
Mazjar Naemi appeals an order determining him to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO) pursuant to Penal Code section 2962 et seq., and recommitting him to the Department of Mental Health for treatment.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On May 17, 2007, the Board of Prison Terms determined that Naemi 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. Naemi filed a petition pursuant to section 2966, subdivision (b), to contest the decision. He waived his right to a jury trial, and a court trial followed.
Doctor David Fennell, a staff psychiatrist at Atascadero State Hospital, testified that he had reviewed the medical file and records concerning Naemi. He opined that Naemi suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, and an anti-social personality disorder. Fennell also opined that Naemi was not in remission and could not be kept in remission without treatment, and that he represented a substantial physical danger to others by reason of his severe mental disorder. Fennell testified that Naemi had not voluntarily followed his treatment plan, refused to participate in therapy, and had threatened hospital staff within the prior year. He concluded that Naemi met the recommitment criteria of section 2962 et seq.
Following presentation of Doctor Fennell's testimony and argument by counsel, the trial court found that Naemi met the MDO criteria beyond a reasonable doubt.
We appointed counsel to represent Naemi in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, he filed an opening brief raising no issues.
On December 18, 2007, we advised Naemi that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We have not received a response.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Naemi's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The order of commitment is affirmed.
We concur: YEGAN, J., COFFEE, J.