Cal. State Dept. of State Hospitals v. R.M. CA2/6

Filed 1/5/23 Cal. State Dept. of State Hospitals v. R.M. CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
CALIFORNIA STATE 2d Crim. No. B323507
DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Super. Ct. No. 22MH-0185)
HOSPITALS, (San Luis Obispo County)
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
R.M.
Defendant and Appellant.
R.M. appeals an order authorizing the California State
Department of State Hospitals to involuntarily treat him with
antipsychotic medication. The trial court found he is incompetent
to make decisions about his own medical treatment. (Welf. &
Inst. Code, § 5300; In re Qawi (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1.) R.M. was
committed for treatment in 2020 pursuant to Penal Code section
2962.
We appointed counsel to represent R.M. on this appeal.
After examination of the record, his counsel filed an opening brief
pursuant to People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304.)
R.M. submitted a supplemental brief. He claims the order
to involuntarily treat him with antipsychotic medication is
invalid and it violates his right to religious freedom. But his
short letter brief does not cite to the evidence in the record or
show why the trial court’s findings are not supported by the
record.
“A competent adult has a constitutional and common law
right to refuse even necessary medical treatment.” (In re
Greenshields (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1289.) But mentally
ill people may be committed for involuntary medication
treatment where they are not competent to make medication
decisions to refuse necessary antipsychotic medication. (Ibid.) A
defendant who claims antipsychotic medication orders violate his
religious freedom must present sufficient evidence to support
that claim. (Id. at p. 1294.)
Doctor David Fennell testified R.M. suffers from
schizophrenia and he has been subject to involuntary medication
orders since 2019. R.M. does not understand the nature of his
mental illness. His “hyperreligiosity is a symptom” of his mental
disorder of schizophrenia. He lacks the capacity to make
“informed decisions about his medication.” “He was gravely
disabled when he was off medications.” The “introduction of
psychotropic medication” enabled him to be “organized in his
thinking.”
2
R.M. testified the “Qawi involuntary medication order
substantially impairs [his] religious belief.” He said because of
the “vow of the Nazarite,” he must abstain from wine or alcohol.
The trial court found R.M. is incapable of making decisions
about his treatment and his medication. R.M. does not realize
that the drug that is being administered “is having a beneficial
effect on him.” The court also found that his claim that the drug
violated his sincere religious belief was not credible. We do not
decide witness credibility. That is a matter exclusively decided by
the trial court. (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1203.)
The court said, “[T]he drug they’re giving him is not alcohol. [I]t
does not sound like it violates anything in the Bible.” The court
found R.M.’s testimony was not sufficient to support a valid
“religious exemption to the administration of the drugs that are
deemed necessary.” R.M. has not shown that finding is not
supported by the record. Fennell testified R.M.’s religious claims
are a “symptom” of his mental illness.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
GILBERT, P. J.
We concur:
YEGAN, J.
BALTODANO, J.
3
Donald G. Umhofer, Judge
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
______________________________
Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
4