People v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 21 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | A158100 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TROY LEE ROBINSON, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. SCN170967)
Troy Lee Robinson appeals from the trial court's order sustaining consolidated petitions to extend his commitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) pursuant to Penal Code section 2970.1 He argues the record does not affirmatively establish that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial. He also contends there was insufficient evidence that he posed a substantial danger of physical harm to others or that he has serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior. We affirm.
Robinson suffers from schizophrenia, which was first diagnosed in 1993. In 1999, Robinson pled guilty to one count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The offense involved an incident in which Robinson attacked a stranger at a crosswalk withoutprovocation, punching her four times. The victim was found lying on the sidewalk bleeding from her lips and mouth. In later discussions about the offense, Robinson recounted that he heard voices telling him to " 'hit someone black' " or to assault black women. Also, he was angry and stressed at the time because he had been kicked out of his board and care home, and he was drinking on top of taking his medications. In March 1999, the trial court sentenced Robinson to two years in state prison.
Within months of his sentencing, Robinson was transferred to Atascadero State Hospital pursuant to section 2962. Thereafter, the district attorney annually filed petitions to extend his MDO commitment, which the trial court granted. (§ 2970.) Robinson waived his right to a jury trial at all of these extension proceedings. At some of the hearings, he consented to the extensions via written waivers stating he understood his right to a jury trial by twelve people where the People would have the burden of proving to all of them beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a person described by section 2970.
The instant appeal concerns consolidated extension petitions filed in March 2018 and March 2019. The court held a hearing on these petitions in July 2019, and Robinson personally appeared with counsel. At the outset of the hearing, the People indicated it was necessary to obtain Robinson's waiver of his jury trial right. The following colloquy ensued:
At the court trial that followed, Robinson's treating psychologist, Dr. Onofre, was the sole witness. She was designated an expert in psychology and "in the mentally disordered offender area." We briefly summarize her testimony here.
Dr. Onofre testified that Robinson was diagnosed with schizophrenia, a "severe mental illness," and that he also has a substance abuse diagnosis. She opined that his schizophrenia is not in remission and that he currently poses substantial danger of physical harm to others if released, in part because he still exhibits the same kinds of symptoms he did at the time of the commitment offense, such as hearing voices and experiencing confusion.Dr. Onofre also concluded that Robinson has no "forensic release prevention plan" to address his symptoms, triggers, or medication compliance if released into the community and noted Robinson's statements that he planned on drinking and likely discontinuing his medication if released. She also reported a statement Robinson made to her the day before his hearing that he refused to meet with the Department of State Hospital's conditional release program (CONREP) during a recently scheduled biannual visit because "he wasn't ready to leave the hospital and wasn't ready to go out on CONREP."
The trial court found beyond a reasonable doubt Robinson has a severe mental disorder that is not in remission or that cannot be kept in remission without treatment. The court further found that, by reason of his disorder, he presents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. The court granted the requested extension of Robinson's MDO commitment until September 30, 2020. Robinson appealed.
Robinson contends the order extending his MDO commitment must be reversed because the record does not affirmatively show he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial. For the reasons below, we conclude otherwise.
An MDO facing an extension of his or her commitment has a right to a jury trial. (§ 2972, subd. (a)(1)-(2).) Like a criminal defendant's waiver of a jury trial, the subject MDO's waiver must be knowing and intelligent. (People v. Blackburn (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1113, 1125.) "[A] knowing and intelligent jury waiver requires an appreciation of the nature of the jury trial right and the consequences of forgoing this right." (People v. Sivongxxay(2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 171 (Sivongxxay).) But while the trial court must advise the subject MDO of the right to a jury trial and secure a personal waiver of the right (§ 2972, subd. (a)(1)-(2)), this does not mean the MDO is constitutionally entitled to be " 'canvassed by the trial court' " when giving the waiver. (Sivongxxay, at p. 168.) Our Supreme Court has "eschewed any rigid formula or particular form of words that a trial court must use in taking a jury waiver," emphasizing that " ' "[m]atters of reality, and not mere ritual, should be controlling." ' " (Id. at pp. 169-170.)
That said, the Supreme Court has offered "general guidance to help ensure that a defendant's jury trial waiver is knowing and intelligent, and to facilitate the resolution of a challenge to a jury waiver on appeal." (Sivongxxay, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 169.) Namely, the court recommends that trial courts "advise a defendant of the basic mechanics of a jury trial in a waiver colloquy, including . . . that (1) a jury is made up of 12 members of the community; (2) a defendant through his or her counsel may participate in jury selection; (3) all 12 jurors must unanimously agree in order to render a verdict; and (4) if a defendant waives the right to a jury trial, a judge alone will decide his or her guilt or innocence." (Ibid.) The court also recommends that trial courts "take additional steps as appropriate to ensure, on the record, that the defendant comprehends what the jury trial right entails," such as "by asking whether the defendant had an adequate opportunity to discuss the decision with his or her attorney, by asking whether counsel explained to the defendant the fundamental differences between a jury trial and a bench trial, or by asking the defendant directly if he or she understands or has any questions about the right being waived." (Id. at pp. 169-170.)
"[A] jury waiver is only valid ' " 'if the record affirmatively shows that it is voluntary and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances.' " ' " (People v. Jones (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 420, 429 (Jones).) Whether a defendant knowingly and intelligently enters such a waiver is reviewed de novo. (People v. Vargas (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1653, 1660.)
Sivongxxay, supra, 3 Cal.5th 151, is instructive. In Sivongxxay, the trial court advised the capital defendant—a Laotian refugee with no formal education and limited English proficiency—that "he had a right to a jury trial, that a jury consists of 12 people from the community, that he would have the right to participate in the selection of the jury, and that waiver of the right to a jury would mean the judge alone would determine his guilt or innocence and any resulting punishment." (Sivongxxay, at p. 167.) In concluding the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his jury trial right, the court relied on (1) the foregoing advisement and (2) the specific circumstances that the defendant was represented by counsel and was assisted by a translator, that the defense initiated the request for a court trial, and that the defendant had two prior experiences with the criminal justice system, having pled to offenses in other states. (Ibid.) The court found the waiver valid despite the fact that "the trial court did not mention that a jury must be impartial, and must also be unanimous." (Id. at p. 168.)
Here, as in Sivongxxay, Robinson was represented by counsel. And just as the court advised in Sivongxxay, counsel here advised Robinson of his right to a jury trial and also that, while a jury trial would involve "12 people from the community that come and hear the evidence," a court trial is where "trial [is] in front...
To continue reading
Request your trial