From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sheppard

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division
Feb 10, 2011
No. B222599 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2011)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a post-judgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. PA017693 Daniel B. Feldstern, Judge.

Jean Matulis, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Keith H. Borjon and Joseph P. Lee, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


ALDRICH, J.

Previously found not guilty by reason of insanity, appellant James Sheppard sought conditional release from state hospital commitment, seeking outpatient status under Penal Code section 1026 et seq. Appellant had been released three other times to community outpatient treatment and each time returned to state hospital commitment because he violated rules, went AWOL, and consumed alcohol. The trial court did not authorize outpatient status again, citing appellant’s alcohol relapses and alcohol abuse, which led to the crime for which he was committed. Finding no error or constitutional infirmity with the proceedings, we affirm.

Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In an “acute psychotic state precipitated by the sudden cessation of alcohol use, ” which involved “withdrawal-induced command hallucinations, ” telling him to punish his victims, appellant attacked an elderly woman and her brother, with whom appellant had a conflicted sexual and business relationship. Appellant was found guilty, but not guilty by reason of insanity for one count of attempted murder, in violation of sections 664 and 187, and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1), causing great bodily injury. Appellant was committed to Patton State Hospital (Patton). (§ 1026, subd. (a).) The commitment date was December 19, 1994.

1. Appellant’s History Of Prior Conditional Release To Outpatient Treatment

Appellant had previously been released to community outpatient treatment (COT) three times and returned to Patton because he violated rules, went absent without leave (AWOL), and consumed alcohol.

In March 1998, appellant was approved for the conditional release program. Three months later, he returned to Patton for breaking his contract, consuming alcohol, and going AWOL for three days from the conditional release program.

Two years later, in April 2000, appellant was approved for conditional release. He went AWOL after seven months when he failed a mandatory urinalysis screening for drugs and alcohol. Appellant turned himself in and was readmitted to Patton on May 14, 2001.

In 2006, appellant again was approved for the conditional release program, but he was placed in a locked facility. Appellant became frustrated with his living situation, jumped the fence at the facility, bought alcohol, and returned to the facility with the alcohol. Appellant physically and sexually coerced his roommate to drink the alcohol with him. Following the drinking incident, appellant went AWOL and was later picked up by Santa Monica police, and he was readmitted to Patton.

1. Patton Report

By stipulation, the Patton report and the report prepared by forensic psychiatrist Sanjay Sahgal, M.D., were admitted into evidence.

The Patton report, signed by the medical director, did not recommend outpatient status. According to the report, “[i]f Mr. Sheppard’s [a]lcohol abuse is not completely treated, he is likely to relapse and may experience withdrawal psychosis, placing him at risk of repeating his crime.”

The Patton report discussed appellant’s history of alcohol abuse, and his past relapses during conditional release. Before recommending conditional release again, the treatment team concluded appellant needed to continue psychotherapy and work on greater integration of coping skills and relapse prevention. Otherwise, appellant was at risk for another relapse, which endangered him and others, as alcohol dependence followed by abrupt discontinuation is what caused the violent psychotic episode that led to his commitment. Thus, the treatment team concluded appellant should remain at Patton as he continues to be a danger to others.

2. Dr. Sahgal Report

Dr. Sahgal interviewed appellant and reviewed appellant’s medical records. Dr. Sahgal concluded appellant’s alcohol dependence was in remission, and he fell into the category of low risk. Dr. Sahgal noted appellant had no other incidents of violence, was extremely high functioning, and was addressing his alcohol addiction through treatment. According to Dr. Sahgal, appellant posed no greater risk to the community “than the average alcoholic.”

3. Appellant’s Testimony

Appellant testified, and he admitted that he broke rules and consumed alcohol when previously released to outpatient treatment. At Patton, he participated in individual counseling and group therapy, attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and worked in, and supervised, the horticulture program at the hospital. Appellant had not had any violent incident or had any alcohol-withdrawal induced psychotic episode since 1994.

4. Trial Court’s Ruling

After hearing testimony and considering the Patton report and Dr. Sahgal’s report, the trial court did not order appellant’s conditional release. The trial court reasoned appellant’s risk factors increase when he consumes alcohol. Appellant was given three opportunities in an outpatient setting, broke the rules, and consumed alcohol. The trial court acknowledged appellant did not hurt anybody following his alcohol relapses but rejected the argument that appellant was not dangerous unless he hurt somebody.

The trial court gave more weight to the Patton report than to Dr. Sahgal’s report, referring to Dr. Sahgal’s report as a “highlighted” version of appellant’s background. The trial court rejected Dr. Sahgal’s conclusion that if appellant is dangerous because he is a chronic alcoholic, appellant is no different than other alcoholics. Appellant committed a violent crime during an alcohol-related psychotic episode, which the trial court viewed as a significant distinction. Therefore, the trial court followed the recommendation of the Patton treatment team.

Appellant timely appealed from the order denying outpatient status. (§ 1237, subd. (b).)

DISCUSSION

A person committed to a state hospital in appellant’s circumstances may be approved for outpatient status under section 1603 upon the recommendation of the state hospital director and the community program director with the court’s approval after a hearing. (§§ 1026, subd. (a), 1603, subd. (a)(1); People v. Sword (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 614, 620.) “ ‘Outpatient status is not a privilege given the [offender] to finish out his sentence in a less restricted setting; rather it is a discretionary form of treatment to be ordered by the committing court only if the medical experts who plan and provide treatment conclude that such treatment would benefit the [offender] and cause no undue hazard to the community.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Sword, supra, at p. 620.) Outpatient status is a prerequisite to a finding that sanity has been restored. (§ 1026.2)

In assessing whether to authorize outpatient status, the court must determine whether the applicant “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).) The court “shall consider the circumstances and nature of the criminal offense leading to commitment and shall consider the person’s prior criminal history.” (§ 1604, subd. (c); People v. Cross (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 63, 73.) Appellant has the burden of proving he met the conditions for his outpatient release. (People v. Sword, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at pp. 621, 624.)

People v. Sword, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at pages 622 through 624 rejected and resolved the constitutional argument appellant advances here that placing the burden of proof on him violates due process. We do not revisit the issue.

The trial court’s decision to deny outpatient status is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Cross, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 73.) “Under that standard, it is not sufficient to show facts affording an opportunity for a difference of opinion. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) Instead, “ ‘discretion is abused only if the court exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered.’ ” (Ibid.)

Appellant contends there is no substantial evidence to support the trial court’s order denying outpatient status, and because of the lack of evidence the order is arbitrary and violates due process. At most, appellant has established a difference of opinion, not lack of sufficient evidence.

Unlike Dr. Sahgal, appellant’s treatment team did not recommend conditional release, concluding appellant continued to pose a danger to himself and others. While appellant had not committed a violent act since the commitment offense, his treatment team at Patton noted he lacked coping skills and had suffered alcohol relapses in his three previous attempts at participation in a conditional release program. Without these coping skills, appellant posed a risk of consuming alcohol again, which might lead to another psychotic episode. Even though the Patton treatment team acknowledged appellant was fully engaged in the treatment process, they could not recommend conditional release. The trial court accepted the Patton treatment team’s assessment of appellant, and noted appellant’s alcohol relapses on each of the three other conditional releases increased the risk of danger that upon release, appellant would consume alcohol which might lead to another alcohol-related psychotic episode.

The trial court’s decision to give greater weight to the Patton report than to Dr. Sahgal’s report was not an arbitrary one. The trial court concluded Dr. Sahgal’s report was a “highlighted” version of appellant’s background, which did not adequately consider appellant’s alcohol relapses and the potential for another alcohol-induced psychotic episode. Environmental stressors that were nonexistent at Patton precipitated appellant’s alcohol use upon his conditional release to outpatient treatment. The trial court’s concern that appellant’s alcohol use posed a danger to him and others was reasonable in light of appellant’s past behavior and the nature of his commitment offense. The trial court’s findings are supported by substantial evidence; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s application for outpatient status.

DISPOSITION

The post-judgment order denying outpatient status is affirmed.

We concur: KLEIN, P. J., CROSKEY, J.


Summaries of

People v. Sheppard

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division
Feb 10, 2011
No. B222599 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2011)
Case details for

People v. Sheppard

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES SHEPPARD, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division

Date published: Feb 10, 2011

Citations

No. B222599 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2011)