Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Super. Ct. Nos. FWVRS701312 & FWVRS038332, Gilbert Ochoa, Judge.
Linda Acaldo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
HOLLENHORST Acting P. J.
Defendant and appellant David Williamson appeals his recommitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
An MDO hearing was held on March 20, 2008. Dr. Reddy Viswanasha, a forensic psychologist at Patton State Hospital (Patton), testified at the hearing. Defendant was admitted to Patton on June 7, 2005. Dr. Viswanasha had been treating defendant since July 2007. The doctor testified that he had evaluated defendant and diagnosed him with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, and polysubstance dependence. Defendant’s symptoms included a manic episode of distractibility, grandiosity (believing oneself to be greater and having certain powers), “flight of ideas,” delusions of persecution, and delusions of being infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Defendant had also been found at Patton fermenting his own version of alcohol called “pruno.” Dr. Viswanasha opined that defendant was not in remission. He said that since defendant was admitted, he had never acknowledged having a mental disorder. Defendant told Dr. Viswanasha that he was at Patton to learn to become a “psych tech.” Defendant’s treatment included taking medication and participating in group therapy. However, defendant consistently refused to take medication to treat his disorder. He also minimally participated in group therapy sessions. When he did participate, he primarily discussed his HIV infection. Defendant was fixated on having HIV, despite being tested for HIV at least four times with negative results and being told multiple times that he did not have HIV.
Dr. Viswanasha further opined that defendant represented a danger of physical harm to others because of his severe mental disorder. There had been multiple episodes of defendant threatening peers and hospital staff within the past six months. In January 2008, defendant had an altercation with a peer whom he threatened to stab in the eye. A two-inch rusty nail was found on defendant’s person, as well as loose metal wires and contraband (i.e., metal objects, staples, etc.). On March 6, 2008, defendant had a physical altercation with another peer. Defendant was placed on “homicide alert” for fear that he would commit an act that was potentially deadly. Furthermore, defendant had, in the past, threatened individuals by stating he was HIV positive and attempting to bite and infect them. In addition, defendant continued to make pruno, which Dr. Viswanasha felt would significantly increase the probability of defendant’s dangerousness.
Dr. Viswanasha concluded that defendant would not be in remission without any treatment and that defendant continued to be a threat of harm to others. Dr. Viswanasha believed defendant had a propensity for assaultive behavior.
Defendant testified on his own behalf at the hearing. When asked why he was at Patton, he responded that he was in the state mental health system “trying to find a way to get out.” Defendant also said he had AIDS. When asked if he believed he had a severe mental disorder, he said, “I believe that this HIV disease, which I know comes and goes, I’ve lived with it for 12 years. I know the symptoms can cause mental health-related conditions where there’s anxiety. [¶] Yeah, it’s very difficult. Plus, it’s politically challenging.” Defendant did not believe he had schizoaffective disorder or that he needed treatment. He also said he would not take medication for it.
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [ 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case and two potential arguable issues, including whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that defendant remained an MDO and whether there was sufficient evidence to establish he represented a substantial danger of physical harm to others. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: GAUT J. KING J.