People v. Reyes

Decision Date17 August 2020
Docket NumberB295323
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
PartiesTHE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AURELIO REYES, Defendant and Appellant.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. ZM012732)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert S. Harrison, Judge. Reversed with directions.

Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Colleen M. Tiedemann and William H. Shin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Aurelio Reyes appeals from the judgment extending his commitment to a state hospital under Penal Code section 1026.5, subdivision (b), following a court trial. Reyes, who represented himself at the trial, contends several of the trial court's rulings violated his due process rights. We conclude that the trial court violated Reyes's due process rights by denying his requests to call witnesses and to testify and that these errors were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we reverse with directions for a new trial.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The People Petition To Extend Reyes's Commitment

In the late 1990s Reyes was found not guilty of manslaughter by reason of insanity, and the court committed Reyes to a state hospital for treatment under Penal Code section 1026.1 Section 1026.5, subdivision (a)(1), provides a person committed to a state hospital under section 1026 "may not be kept in actual custody longer than the maximum term of commitment," which is defined as the "longest term of imprisonment which could have been imposed for the offense or offenses of which the person was convicted . . . ." However, section 1026.5, subdivision (b), provides a court may extend the person's commitment for a period of two years upon the petition of the prosecuting attorney if the person has been committed for a felony and "by reason of a mental disease, defect, or disorder represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others." (§ 1026.5, subds. (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(8); see People v. Martinez (2016)246 Cal.App.4th 1226, 1239.) The People have filed multiple successful petitions under section 1026.5, subdivision (b), to extend Reyes's commitment for additional two-year terms. On April 13, 2018 the People filed a new petition to extend Reyes's commitment for two years. Reyes waived his right to a jury trial.

B. The People Present Their Case

On the first day of trial Reyes asked to represent himself under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta). The People did not object to the request, but asked that, before the court granted a continuance, the court allow them to call two witnesses, Remeishia Mims and Dr. Silvia Torrez, that day. Reyes stated that he had asked his attorney to request a 30-day continuance, but that the attorney refused. Reyes also said his attorney would not call the witnesses Reyes wanted to call. Reyes made clear, however, he was not trying to delay the proceedings. The trial court allowed the People to call the two witnesses they wanted to call that day, stating: "There's a concern that these [Faretta] motions are made for the purpose of delay. . . . I don't see a need to stop today's proceedings. We have to continue the proceedings anyway and we're going to—and we'll continue for your witnesses when they're available."

Before the trial court relieved him, counsel for Reyes stated that he had received a police report that day from Patton State Hospital where Reyes was committed and that the prosecutor would have to give Reyes a copy of the report so Reyes would have it to cross-examine witnesses. The trial court arranged with the prosecutor to send a copy of the report by fax to Reyes at the hospital.

Before the People called their first witness, and in response to the trial court's inquiry, Reyes told the court he intended to call several witnesses, including a psychiatrist named Dr. Panadero and a clinician named Dr. Ronowaski. Reyes also provided the address of the prison where the two doctors worked. When the prosecutor asked Reyes to make an offer of proof, Reyes stated that both Dr. Panadero, who treated Reyes for six months earlier that year (2018), and Dr. Ronowaski would testify he did not have a mental illness.

The People's first witness was Mims, a psychiatric technician at Patton State Hospital. Mims described an incident in September 2017 where Reyes attacked another psychiatric technician, for which the police arrested Reyes. During Mims's testimony the prosecutor introduced two photographs showing the psychiatric technician's injuries from the attack.

The People's second witness was Dr. Torrez, a psychologist with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation who interviewed Reyes in October 2018 for approximately two and a half hours. Dr. Torrez opined, based on her observations during the interview and Reyes's documented mental health history, Reyes had schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, and antisocial personality disorder. Dr. Torrez further testified that Reyes had no insight into his mental illnesses and that Reyes denied his illness for reasons "border[ing] on delusional," such as believing Patton State Hospital lied about his condition to make money. Dr. Torrez also testified Reyes posed a "significant danger to others."

The prosecutor did not finish her direct examination of Dr. Torrez on the first day of trial, and the People called her on the second day of trial, which occurred 12 days later. BeforeDr. Torrez testified the second day, however, Reyes stated he had not received a copy of a report Dr. Torrez submitted in support of the People's petition. The court asked Dr. Torrez to arrange to have someone provide Reyes with a copy of the report. Reyes did not request a continuance to review the report and proceeded to cross-examine Dr. Torrez after the prosecutor finished her examination.

On the third day of trial (which was two days later), the People called Dr. Jannavie Hickman, a clinical psychologist, and Dr. Gordon Plotkin, an expert in psychiatry. Dr. Hickman had six or seven therapy sessions with Reyes, beginning in September 2018. Like Dr. Torrez, Dr. Hickman opined, based on her sessions with Reyes, that Reyes suffered from schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. Dr. Hickman also testified Reyes denied having a mental illness.

Dr. Plotkin interviewed Reyes for an hour and a half in September 2018. As had Dr. Torrez and Dr. Hickman, Dr. Plotkin concluded Reyes suffered from schizoaffective disorder. Dr. Plotkin also opined Reyes had "methamphetamine use disorder" and antisocial personality disorder. Dr. Plotkin also stated Reyes had no insight into his mental illnesses, had no intention of treating his mental illnesses, and posed a "substantial danger of physical harm to others."

Before the end of the third day of trial, Reyes asked the court to recall Dr. Torrez, claiming that he "did not receive her report" and "barely had time to go over" it and that he "was not prepared to cross-examine her." The court said it would "take that up at another proceeding" because trial had already gone longer than scheduled that day. During the fourth and final dayof trial, over a month later, Reyes did not ask the court to recall Dr. Torrez.

C. Reyes's Attempts To Testify and Call Witnesses

The People rested after Dr. Plotkin completed his testimony on the fourth day of trial.2 Reyes and the trial court had the following exchange:

"The Court: It is your opportunity to call witnesses. If you choose to testify then you have waived your right to not testify. That means . . . the People will be able to cross-examine you fully.

"[Reyes]: That's fine. I will testify, Your Honor. I will testify.

"The Court: So then we'll have to resume this matter. We're going to have to transfer you down to Los Angeles to finish the case.

"[Reyes]: That's fine with me."

Reyes asked about the logistics for calling witnesses. The court responded: "You did not furnish the court with the information to issue a subpoena . . . . You didn't give us the correct names. That was the problem." When Reyes said he would "do it now," the trial court interrupted and asked him (again) for an offer of proof for his witnesses. Reyes stated that Dr. Panadero would testify Reyes did not have a psychiatric illness of any kind and that his treating psychologistDr. "Lowoski"3 would testify Reyes did "not suffer from a diagnosis of mental illness" and did "not have schizoaffective disorder." Reyes then made a motion to dismiss the People's petition and a motion to disqualify the trial judge, both of which the court denied.

After Reyes began arguing about the trial judge's decision not to disqualify himself, the court asked Reyes whether he was "waiving" (presumably, his right to testify) and resting, to which Reyes responded, "No." Eventually, Reyes stated, "Your Honor, I'll go ahead and I'll transfer to Los Angeles and call my witnesses." The trial court stated: "At this point, all of the witnesses you have are only . . . from 2008, well before the assault on the staff member. . . . So at this point they're not relevant." When Reyes reiterated that Dr. Panadero had recently treated him and would testify Reyes did not "suffer from psychosis," the trial court said, "But that is not what the treating psychologist said. Your treating psychologist . . . testified already that you do have a mental disorder."4 Ignoring...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT