People v. Kirkland
| Decision Date | 28 April 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. E011279,E011279 |
| Citation | 24 Cal.App.4th 891,29 Cal.Rptr.2d 863 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. William R. KIRKLAND, Defendant and Appellant. |
This appeal raises significant issues concerning the article of the Penal Code entitled "Disposition of Mentally Disordered Prisoners upon Discharge" (Pen.Code, §§ 2960-2981) (hereafter the Mentally Disordered Prisoners Act, or the Act), and in particular Penal Code sections 2970 and 2972. 1
When defendant and appellant William R. Kirkland (defendant) had almost completed his maximum parole term and was due to be unconditionally released, he was recommitted for continued involuntary treatment of his mental disorder (continued treatment), pursuant to sections 2970 and 2972. Defendant contends that this recommitment was erroneous, in that:
1. The petition for continued treatment (petition) was filed under the number of a case in which defendant had been discharged, rather than under the number of the case in which he was in physical custody for a parole violation and therefore the trial court had no jurisdiction to recommit defendant; and the trial court's order purporting to correct the case number nunc pro tunc was erroneous;
2. Defendant received no treatment by state mental health officials for his mental disorder while he was in physical custody following his arrest for a parole violation on July 22, 1991, through entry of the order for continued treatment on June 4, 1992, and therefore the trial court had no jurisdiction to recommit him for "continued" treatment;
3. The recommitment order is void because the required remission evaluation report was submitted to the district attorney less than 180 days before defendant's parole termination date, in violation of section 2970; and
4. The recommitment order is void because the trial in the continued treatment proceeding commenced less than 30 days before defendant's parole termination date, in violation of section 2972, subdivision (a).
We find no error, and accordingly we affirm.
Defendant suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. Although rational at times, when he perceives someone as hostile he becomes delusional and threatening. He has made numerous threats to kill others, including the Governor, members of the Parole Board, parole and corrections officers, mental health professionals, members of his own family, and the trial judge in this case. Because of his mental illness, defendant presents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. On occasion, defendant has taken antipsychotic medication either voluntarily or under court order. When defendant takes such medication, his condition is considerably improved.
On June 23, 1986, in People v. Kirkland (Super.Ct. San Bernardino Co., No. SCR-44305) (hereafter Case No. 44305), defendant was charged by complaint with two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. On July 3, 1986, after a preliminary hearing, he was held to answer on both charges. While in custody pending trial in case No. 44305, defendant used a razor to slash the throat of a corrections officer, Sheriff's Deputy Maclorio Rojo.
Accordingly, in a second case, People v. Kirkland (Super.Ct. San Bernardino Co., No. SCR-44503) (hereafter Case No. 44503), defendant was charged by information on October 14, 1986, with the attempted murder of Deputy Rojo. 2 The prosecutor in Case No. 44503 was Deputy District Attorney Raymond L. Haight III (Haight).
In Case No. 44503, on December 16, 1986, a jury found defendant guilty of attempted voluntary manslaughter and on the next day the trial court found defendant not guilty by reason of insanity under section 1026. On April 5, 1987, defendant was committed to Patton State Hospital under section 1026.
Thereafter, on July 20, 1987, in case No. 44305, pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of assault with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to three years in prison. On that same date, in case No. 44503, defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, and case No. 44305 was "trail[ed] for outpatient proceedings." Counsel stipulated that the court might review "this" case for outpatient proceedings.
Thus, defendant entered prison in case No. 44305 on September 17, 1987. On June 10, 1988, with case No. 44503 still pending, he was paroled in case No. 44305. One of the conditions of his parole was that he attend outpatient psychiatric counseling. By July 13, 1988, however, defendant had disappeared. On July 20, 1988, he was arrested for a new offense of possession of a controlled substance for sale.
Meanwhile, on August 12, 1988, the trial court ordered defendant "discharged" in case No. 44503 because he was on outpatient status. It noted that defendant was currently in prison on another case.
On August 19, 1988, defendant was found to be in violation of his parole in case No. 44305 and was returned to custody for 12 months. On March 21, 1989, he was paroled on the same conditions previously imposed when he was first paroled. On April 4, 1989, he was arrested for parole violations, including failure to attend psychiatric therapy. On April 17, 1989, he was returned to custody for six months and later, on September 28, 1989, he was returned to custody for twelve months.
In May, 1990, prison officials obtained a court order permitting them to administer antipsychotic medication to defendant involuntarily. With such medication, defendant's mental condition improved.
Defendant next was paroled on condition that he be committed to Atascadero State Hospital (Atascadero) for treatment. 3 At Atascadero, defendant continued to receive antipsychotic medication involuntarily. The staff at Atascadero felt that defendant did not need to be hospitalized as long as he took antipsychotic medication. They therefore released defendant to an outpatient program on February 15, 1991. He remained on parole, however, and it remained a condition of his parole that he receive mental health treatment.
Attempts were made to set up a treatment program for defendant while he was in an outpatient program while on parole, but they were frustrated by the fact that he was swiftly and repeatedly rearrested for parole violations. First, he was arrested on February 20, 1991, just five days after his release. He was released again on March 21, 1991, but arrested a second time on April 16, 1991 for new parole violations and returned to custody on May 15, 1991. On July 15, 1991, he was released on parole a third time. Seven days later, on July 22, 1991, he was arrested for further parole violations. When he was returned to custody on August 21, 1991, he was sent to the California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo (San Luis Obispo).
Upon defendant's arrival at San Luis Obispo, his paranoid schizophrenia was in remission. The staff at San Luis Obispo formulated a treatment plan for him, but he would not follow it. He refused both therapy and antipsychotic medication.
In January, 1992, defendant's condition deteriorated. As a result, he was reexamined on January 17, 1992 and found to be having an acute episode of paranoid schizophrenia. He was "extremely agitated, hostile, angered and explosive;" he made "threats of bodily harm towards staff, quote, killing, death, mayhem, end quote."
Defendant was due to be released on June 9, 1992. On that date, his maximum possible parole period expired (see § 3000, subd. (a); § 3057, subd. (b)), and he was entitled to unconditional release. Under sections 2970 and 2972, however, a mentally disordered offender whose parole is approaching its final termination and who has been continuously provided mental health treatment by the State Department of Mental Health, either in a state hospital or in an outpatient program, while he or she was released from prison on parole, can be committed involuntarily for one year from the date of termination of parole for continued treatment at the end of his or her parole period if a court or jury finds that the "patient" has a severe mental disorder, that the patient's severe mental disorder is not in remission or cannot be kept in remission without treatment and that by reason of the severe mental disorder the patient represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. Officials in charge of the mentally disordered offender's treatment may initiate a proceeding for continued involuntary treatment under sections 2970 and 2972 by submitting their written evaluation of the offender's remission (remission evaluation) to the district attorney of the county of commitment. (§ 2970.) The evaluation is to be submitted not later than 180 days before either the offender's parole terminates or the offender is due to be released from prison. (§ 2970.)
After January 17, 1992, when the staff at San Luis Obispo realized that defendant's condition had worsened, they considered recommending him for continued treatment proceedings. They placed defendant in an observation unit for evaluation. Then, over the next three or four weeks, they prepared supporting documentation for a remission evaluation. On March 2, 1992, the Assistant Warden for Psychiatric Services, a psychiatrist, sent a letter to the District Attorney for San Bernardino County recommending proceedings for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Williams
...would hinder the legislative purpose and could also disserve those prisoners who require treatment. (See People v. Kirkland, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 911, 29 Cal. Rptr.2d 863 [180-day requirement also "ensures the district attorney adequate time to decide whether to file the petition, fi......
-
People v. Allen
...cases have considered whether the time limits in other provisions of the MDPA are mandatory or directory. In People v. Kirkland (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 891, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 863, the defendant contended that the order for his recommitment under section 2970 was void because the trial of the con......
-
People v. Tatum
...A trial court's finding of "good cause," if any, is reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion. (People v. Kirkland (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 891, 909, 29 Cal. Rptr.2d 863 (Kirkland); Fernandez, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at pp. 128, fn. 7, 133, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 469 [stating that "findings regarding g......
-
Spitze v. Zolin
...(1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1177, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 832 P.2d 146 [claim of ineffective assistance of counsel]; People v. Kirkland (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 891, 916, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 863 [claim of inadequate time for trial preparation based on failure of custodial official to meet statutory deadline ......