Opinion
2d Crim. No. B200645
4-15-2008
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONALD MONORE OFFERMAN, Defendant and Appellant.
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, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Sonya Roth, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Donald Monroe Offerman appeals from the judgment, by jury, extending his commitment to Atascadero State Hospital (ASH) as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) within the meaning of Penal Code section 2970. He contends the judgment must be reversed because the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that he presently represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. We conclude substantial evidence supports the judgment and affirm.
Facts
Appellant pleaded guilty to battery on a police officer (§ 243, subd. (c)(1)), and was sentenced to four years in state prison. In 2004, he was paroled to ASH as an MDO. During his time at ASH, appellant has been diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia. He is electively mute and has spoken to only two people during his hospitalization: a registered nurse upon his admission and another staff member. Appellant told the staff member that his father might have had President Kennedy assassinated and that their water supply might have silicone chips in it.
In 2005 and 2006, appellant refused to take medication. This refusal meant that he had to be restrained by four or five men while the medication was administered by injection. Appellant became compliant with treatment in 2006. He stopped taking medication again in March 2007, when he was transferred to the county jail for his trial.
Appellant testified at the MDO trial that he thought it was possible for silicone chips to enter a persons blood through drinking water. Energy, in the form of radio waves sent from satellites to the earth, might explode the chips and cause damage to ones body. Appellant also testified that he is infected with a rapidly replicating form of HIV and will soon die. He denied committing the battery that sent him to prison and he denied a prior incident in which he drove while covering his face with a piece of cardboard. Appellant testified that he does not believe he needs to be medicated.
Dr. Robert Knapp, medical director at ASH, testified that appellant has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and that he suffers from auditory hallucinations and delusional beliefs. Appellants muteness is consistent with paranoia. Dr. Knapp testified that, in his opinion, appellant has a serious mental disorder that is not in remission. The mental disorder creates a substantial danger of physical harm to others because appellant does not adhere to the rules of society and lacks any internal inhibition to stop him from doing things that are wrong.
Dr. Robert Beilin, community program director for Ventura Regional Conditional Release Program (CONREP), has interviewed appellant every six months during his MDO commitment. Appellant will not speak to Dr. Beilin, but he communicates by using notes with the words "Yes" and "No" printed on them. Dr. Beilin agreed that appellant suffers from schizophrenia, although he diagnoses it as catatonic rather than paranoid. Because appellant will not follow his treatment plan in the hospital, Dr. Beilin opined, appellant would be unlikely to follow a treatment plan in the community. Dr. Beilin believes appellant poses a substantial danger of physical harm to others because of his delusional thinking.
Discussion
Substantial evidence supports the jurys finding that appellant qualifies as an MDO. (People v. Miller (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 913, 919-920.) Appellants commitment offense demonstrates his potential for violence. He realized that potential at ASH when he repeatedly, physically resisted being medicated. In addition, both Dr. Knapp and Dr. Beilin opined there is presently a substantial danger that appellants paranoia and delusions will lead him to cause physical harm to others if he is not hospitalized. This constitutes substantial evidence that appellant meets the statutory MDO criteria. (People v. Superior Court (Williams) (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 477, 490.) There is no requirement that the prosecution prove appellant engaged in a recent, overtly violent act. (People v. Hubbart (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1219.)
Appellants elective muteness is evidence that he continues to suffer from both paranoia and delusions. Both of these features create a substantial risk that he will cause physical harm to others. His continuing refusal to cooperate in treatment — by taking his medication and by participating in therapy — only increases the danger he currently poses. These facts distinguish the present case from People v. Gibson (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1425, on which plaintiff relies. There, we held unconstitutional a former version of the MDO statute that created a presumption of dangerousness based solely on unremitted mental illness. Here, the finding of dangerousness is based on appellants past violent behavior and the expert opinions that features of his current illness create a substantial risk that he will physically harm others.
Conclusion
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
PERREN, J. --------------- Notes: All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.