People v. Reyes CA4/1 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/29/24 P. v. Reyes CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D084072
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS307574)
CARMELO REYES,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Laura H. Parsky, Judge. Dismissed
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Carmelo Reyes appeals from a judgment extending for one year his civil
commitment as an offender with a mental health disorder (OMD) under the
Mentally Disordered Offender Act (MDOA). (Pen. Code, § 2960 et seq.) On
appeal, Reyes’s appointed counsel raises one arguable issue for our review
and asks us to independently review the record for reversible error under
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967)
386 U.S. 738. We agree with the reasoning and holding in People v. Taylor
(2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, however, that the procedures set forth in Wende
and Anders for criminal defendants do not apply to an extension of a civil
commitment under the MDOA. We thus dismiss the appeal.
I.
In 2019 Carmelo Reyes pleaded guilty to committing an assault with a
deadly weapon using rocks. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).) The court
granted him formal probation and released him to a program that would
provide short-term housing and services with an expectation that he would
follow the rules of the program including counseling and testing.
The court revoked his probation in 2021 after finding several probation
violations. The court sentenced him to four years in state prison.
Reyes was initially placed in the general population in state prison, but
required a higher level of care for intensive mental health care. In May 2022,
he was admitted to Atascadero State Hospital on parole pursuant to Penal
Code section 2962 as an offender with a mental disorder.
In January 2024, the People petitioned the court to continue
involuntary treatment for another year contending Reyes still suffers from a
severe mental disorder which cannot be kept in remission without treatment,
and that he poses a substantial danger of physical harm to others by reason
of his mental disorder.
Reyes denied the petition and requested a jury trial. The court
appointed two doctors to evaluate whether Reyes met the criteria for
recommitment and outpatient treatment.
At trial, the jury heard a stipulated account of the history of Reyes’s
current offense as well as Reyes’s prior criminal history including battery,
stalking and harassment after service of a restraining order, possession of a
2
controlled substance, making threats to public officers and resisting an
officer.
The People presented testimony from five witnesses, including three
doctors from Atascadero State Hospital and two court-appointed
psychologists who independently evaluated Reyes.
Seth Cohen, Reyes’s treating psychiatrist at Atascadero State Hospital,
testified that Reyes has schizophrenia and was experiencing delusions and
hallucinations when he was admitted to the hospital. Reyes receives
antipsychotic medications and a mood stabilizer under an involuntary
medication order. Without medication, Reyes has experienced delusions,
agitation and violence, and disorganization of his thought process. With
medication, Reyes’s symptoms are controlled; he does not verbalize delusions
and has not been violent.
Reyes’s participation in group sessions is minimal. Dr. Cohen
commented that Reyes often sits or snoozes in the room where group sessions
occur, so sometimes the groups come to him rather than him actively
attending. Reyes lacks insight into his mental illness. He denies he has a
mental illness, says he never had symptoms, and does not believe he benefits
from taking medications. Dr. Cohen opined that Reyes would not take his
psychotropic medication without an involuntary medication order. If he did
not take them, his symptoms would return, and he would likely become
violent. Dr. Cohen believes Reyes is dangerous and his risk of violence is
significant.
Jacquelyn Norris, Reyes’s treating psychologist at Atascadero, testified
he has a low risk of violence while he is in the institution. But she also
believes he has poor insight about his mental illness. His participation in
group therapy sessions aimed at improving insight is also poor. He attends
3
only 50 to 62 percent of group sessions. They like to see 80 percent
attendance. Reyes may listen to group sessions, but he only responds briefly
to direct questions. Dr. Norris observed recent symptoms of schizophrenia in
Reyes such as potentially responding to internal stimuli and being internally
distracted.
Rebecca Aponte, a forensic psychologist at Atascadero, interviewed and
evaluated Reyes several times, including extensively evaluating his
background. Reyes’s condition of schizophrenia qualifies as a severe mental
health disorder that substantially impairs his thought process, perception of
reality, judgment or behavior as defined in section 2962. Based on Reyes’s
description of the underlying offense, which appeared delusional, Dr. Aponte
opined Reyes was suffering the effects of schizophrenia when he committed
the underlying offense. Dr. Aponte believes Reyes’s condition is in remission,
but schizophrenia is a chronic condition that does not go away. He cannot be
kept in remission without continued treatment because he would not take
medication without an involuntary medication order. Dr. Aponte opined
Reyes represents a substantial risk of physical harm to others because of his
severe mental health disorder. Outside the presence of the jury, Dr. Aponte
testified she did not believe Reyes could be safely and effectively treated in
the community based on his treatment noncompliance and the required use
of an involuntary medication order.
Court-appointed psychologist Nicole Friedman evaluated Reyes and
testified he met the criteria to extend his commitment at the state hospital.
Dr. Friedman did not believe he could be kept in remission without continued
treatment because he lacks insight and is on an involuntary medication
order. He needs medication to keep his symptoms in remission. If he was not
medicated, his symptoms of schizophrenia would return, including delusions
4
and impulsivity which could alter his perception of reality, and his aggression
would likely return. Dr. Friedman opined that Reyes presents a substantial
danger of physical harm to others.
Court-appointed psychologist Stacey Berardino also evaluated Reyes.
She does not believe his schizophrenia is in remission because she observed a
psychotic stare during their interview, there are reports of him responding to
internal stimuli, and he experiences anosognosia, meaning he is unaware of
his mental illness, which is a “neurocognitive symptom.” Some of his overt
symptoms are controlled with medication, like the severity of delusions and
auditory hallucinations. Even assuming he is in remission, she opined he
could not be kept in remission without continued treatment. She testified
Reyes poses a substantial danger of physical harm to others based on his
history of violence when he is not on medication and is symptomatic. She
does not believe he would take medication if he was released.
Reyes did not testify and presented no affirmative evidence.
The jury found true the allegation that Reyes is an offender with a
mental health disorder under Penal Code sections 2970 and 2972.
The court considered and denied Reyes’s request for outpatient
treatment at a separate hearing. The court concluded there was insufficient
evidence that Reyes could be safely and effectively treated on an outpatient
basis.
The court extended Reyes’s commitment until May 8, 2025. Reyes
appealed.
II.
We appointed counsel to represent Reyes on appeal. His counsel filed a
brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below and identified one issue
for review: “Whether the trial court erred by denying appellant’s request for
5
transfer to the conditional release program[.]” Counsel also argues we should
independently review the record on appeal for reversible error under
Wende/Anders. Reyes was provided a copy of counsel’s brief and informed of
his right to file a supplemental brief. He has not done so.
The Supreme Court has held that the Anders/Wende independent
review procedures do not apply to civil commitments under the Lanterman-
Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.). (Conservatorship of
Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 539.) The Second District in Taylor concluded
the Wende/Anders procedures likewise do not apply to OMD commitment
cases. (Taylor, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 308.) Reyes’s counsel does not
cite either Ben C. or Taylor.
In Taylor, the court discussed Ben C. and other relevant cases to
conclude that the Anders/Wende review procedures do not apply to
postconviction commitments under the MDOA. (Taylor, supra,
160 Cal.App.4th at p. 312.) Taylor reasoned that Wende/Anders review is
only required for appointed counsel’s representation of an indigent defendant
in a criminal case, and we are bound by the Supreme Court’s characterization
of the MDOA as a “ ‘civil commitment scheme.’ ” (Ibid.) In rendering its
decision, Taylor commented that the Rules of Court ensure sufficient
advocacy on appeal for individuals committed under the MDOA, and due
process does not require the extension of Anders/Wende to appeals from
OMD commitment orders. (Id. at p. 313.) Accordingly, Taylor dismissed the
appeal without conducting an independent review of the record. (Ibid.)
We agree with Taylor’s reasoning and apply it to this appeal. We
decline to exercise our Ben C. discretion to conduct an independent review of
the record in this case under Anders/Wende or otherwise. (See Taylor, supra,
160 Cal.App.4th at p. 313.) Thus, we dismiss the appeal.
6
III.
The appeal is dismissed.
KELETY, J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, Acting P. J.
BUCHANAN, J.
7