Opinion
E052239 Super.Ct.No. CR21792
11-02-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAUL STEVEN PARELLI, Defendant and Appellant.
H. Reed Webb, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton and Karl T. Terp, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Michael B. Donner, Judge. Affirmed.
H. Reed Webb, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton and Karl T. Terp, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Paul Steven Parelli challenges the superior court's order denying his application under Penal Code section 1026.2, subdivision (e) to transfer from a state hospital to a community-based treatment facility based on a restoration of his sanity. Specifically, defendant argues the superior court denied his due process right to not have this process unreasonably delayed because the hearing on his application was continued a number of times beginning in December 2007 and did not take place until nearly three years later, on October 28, 2010. As discussed below, we conclude that this appeal is meritless.
All section references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
On December 14, 1983, defendant, who was at that time a transient, stabbed another transient to death during a fight, cut off the dead man's penis and kept it with him for a few days. Defendant ate a small piece of the penis before burying it, believing that it would cause him to be more sexually potent. In 1987, after being tried for second degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and theft from a dead body (§ 642), defendant was declared not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to Patton State Hospital.
In 2007, defendant filed an application under section 1026.2, subdivision (e) to transfer from a state hospital to a community-based treatment facility based on a restoration of his sanity. At a hearing held on December 13, 2007, the superior court appointed Dr. Kania to examine the defendant and prepare a report for the next hearing, set for January 17, 2008.
The petition is not included in the record on appeal.
On January 17, 2008, the hearing was continued to January 23 at the People's request.
On January 23, 2008, the hearing was continued to February 27 at the People's request.
On February 27, 2008, the hearing was continued to March 21 at defendant's request.
On February 28, 2008, Dr. Horsley, staff psychiatrist at Patton, filed a section 1026 report recommending defendant "be retained at Patton State Hospital for continued treatment as he has a severe mental illness, continues to be a danger to others, and therefore cannot be treated in a lower level care and/or a less secure facility at this time."
On March 21, 2008, the hearing was continued to April 11 by stipulation of counsel because defendant had not been transported to court. Also on that date, Dr. Kania filed a letter with the court stating defendant's counsel had asked that he not begin the evaluation until the court clarified the nature and purpose of the evaluation.
On April 11, 2008, the hearing was continued to April 14 at the request of defendant's counsel because defendant had not been transported to court.
On April 14, 2008, the hearing was continued to April 25 by stipulation because defendant had not been transported to court.
On April 25, 2008, with defendant present, the hearing was continued to June 6 at defendant's request.
On June 6, 2008, the hearing was continued to June 20 at defendant's request because Dr. Kania had not yet submitted his report.
On June 20, 2008, the court appointed Dr. Rath to examine defendant and prepare a section 1026 report. The court continued the hearing to August 1, 2008.
On June 20, 2008, Dr. Kania filed his section 1026 report, in which he stated that defendant had not yet regained his sanity and it would be premature to consider placement in the community.
On August 1, 2008, the hearing was continued to August 29, 2008 at defendant's request.
The minute order for August 29, 2008 reads "Hearing Set RE: 1026.2 PC on 10/31/2008."
On October 31, 2008, the parties stipulated to continue the hearing to January 30, 2009 because the doctors were unavailable.
On January 30, 2009, the hearing was continued to March 13, 2009, at defendant's request.
On March 13, 2009, the hearing was continued to April 17, 2009, at defendant's request because defendant was not transported to court. Also on that date, Dr. Horsley filed another section 1026 report in which he concluded defendant does not meet the criteria for community-based treatment.
On April 17, 2009, the hearing was continued to May 14, 2009, at defendant's request because he was not transported to court.
On May 14, 2009, the hearing was continued to June 19, 2009, at defendant's request because he was not transported to court.
On June 19, 2009, the hearing was continued to August 14, 2009, at defendant's request.
On August 14, 2009, the matter was placed off calendar at defendant's request.
On February 3, 2010, Dr. Horsley filed another section 1026 report stating his conclusion that defendant did not meet the criteria for outpatient status.
On June 21, 2010, the hearing was continued to July 13, 2010 by the parties' stipulation to give the People more time to prepare.
On July 13, 2010, the hearing was re-set for August 27, 2010, by the parties' stipulation. The court appointed Drs. Rath, Kania and Horsley to examine defendant and submit section 1026 reports.
On July 29, 2010, a staff psychiatrist at Patton named Dr. Reddy submitted a section 1026 report concluding defendant does not meet the criteria for outpatient treatment.
On August 27, 2010, the parties stipulated to continuing the hearing to September 30, 2010.
On September 30, 2010, the court set a hearing for October 6, 2010, regarding the status of the section 1026 reports. Drs. Rath and Kania had yet to submit their reports.
On October 4, 2010, Dr. Rath submitted his section 1026 report, in which he concluded defendant had not yet regained his sanity and remained a menace to the health and safety of others.
On October 6, 2010, the parties stipulated to continuing the hearing to October 28, 2010.
On October 15, 2010, Dr. Kania submitted his section 1026 report, in which he concluded that defendant had not regained his sanity and remained a substantial risk of physical harm to others.
On October 28, 2010, the section 1026 hearing took place. The court denied defendant's oral motion to represent himself, but allowed defendant to address the court against his counsel's objections. Defendant complained about the criminal proceedings in 1987, and then began to rant about hazardous substances in the drinking water. The court denied defendant's application, concluding that he remained a paranoid schizophrenic who was a threat to others and not yet ready to be released into the community. This appeal followed.
Defendant's notice of appeal consists of a four-page, handwritten letter, addressed in a stamped envelope to the clerk's office of this Court, and stamped "received" on November 8, 2010, by the superior court and stamped "received" by this court on November 15, 2010. In the letter, defendant explains his view that the process and outcome of the October 28, 2010, hearing were unjust, and asks for a new hearing. The People neither concede nor challenge that this letter constitutes a notice of appeal. For the sake of argument only, we deem the letter to be a notice of appeal so we can address the merits.
DISCUSSION
Defendant argues the nearly three-year delay between the filing of his section 1026.2 application and the trial court's decision was unjustified and thus constitutes denial of due process.
Under section 1026.2, a person found guilty by reason of insanity and committed to a state hospital may apply for release upon the ground that his sanity has been restored. (§ 1026.2, subd. (a).) The court must first hold a hearing to determine whether the person applying for release "would be a danger to the health and safety of others, due to mental defect, disease, or disorder, if under supervision and treatment in the community." (§ 1026.2, subd. (e).) If the court finds that he would not be a danger, the court is required to order the applicant placed with an appropriate forensic conditional release program for one year. (Ibid.)If the court denies the application, the person must wait at least one year from the date of the denial to file a new application. (§ 1026.2, subd. (j).)
As the People point out, and as defendant in fact concedes, defendant suffered no prejudice from the delayed proceedings, and therefore no due process violation occurred. (See People v. Fernandez (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 117, 131.) The section 1026.2 assessments by the various psychologists did not vary between 2008 and 2010— each uniformly recommended keeping defendant at Patton because neither his paranoid schizophrenia nor his extreme violence against others had abated and he would be a danger if released into the community. For this reason, we conclude that defendant's appeal is meritless.
This is aside from the fact that Parelli caused many of the delays himself and agreed to most others.
--------
DISPOSITION
The superior court's judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZP.J. We concur: HOLLENHORST J. RICHLI J.