Filed 12/20/19 P. v. Wysocki CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ADAM KENT WYSOCKI,

Defendant and Appellant.

E073328

(Super.Ct.No. RIF1802423)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Angel M. Bermudez, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A complaint filed on May 21, 2018, charged defendant and appellant Adam Kent Wysocki with “willfully, unlawfully, and maliciously defac[ing] with graffiti and other inscribed material, damage[ing], and destroy[ing] property that was not his own,” under Penal Code section 594, subdivision (a) (count 1); and misdemeanor willfully and unlawfully resisting arrest under Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a) (count 2).

On July 3, 2018, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to count 1. In exchange, the trial court placed defendant on supervised probation with certain terms and conditions, including a 120-day jail term to be served on work release. The trial court also ordered 33 days of credit and ordered various fines and fees.

One month later, on August 13, 2018, the probation department filed an allegation of violation of probation. The probation department alleged that defendant (1) “was terminated from the Work Release Program” because he completed “0 days of the ordered 87 days”; (2) was detained for public intoxication; (3) failed to be in touch with his probation officer; and (4) failed to notify probation that he had moved and become homeless. The probation department requested that the court issue a warrant for defendant’s arrest. On October 1, 2018, the trial court revoked defendant’s probation and set a violation of probation arraignment hearing for October 15, 2018.

On October 11, 2018, the people filed a petition to violate probation pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.2(b). The petition provided “the People of the State of California will petition the court to violate probation granted in this case on 07/03/2018, upon a conviction of violation of section 594(a) of the Penal Code.” The petition went on to state that “[s]uch Motion will be based on the ground that the defendant violated conditions of his probation (to wit: that he violate no law or ordinance), in that: [¶] On October 10, 2018, a complaint, based on police report number 1810109, was filed in the Superior Court, charging the defendant with a violation of section 148(a) of the Penal Code.”

At the continued hearing on November 26, 2018, defendant’s counsel declared a doubt as to defendant’s mental competency under Penal Code section 1368. The trial court appointed two doctors to examine defendant. The disposition of this case trailed case No. RIM1811834, the new misdemeanor case for resisting arrest.

On December 24, 2018, and January 18, 2019, the reports of the two appointed doctors were filed with the court. The doctors disagreed as to defendant’s competency; therefore, the court appointed a third doctor to examine defendant. On February11, 2019, the third doctor filed his report, in which he wrote:

“[Defendant] was not competent to stand trial: [¶] 1) He was able to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings. [¶] 2) He was not able to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner.”

Because the third doctor opined that defendant lacked the ability to assist counsel, the parties stipulated that the trial court could consider the reports in lieu of a trial with the court finding defendant incompetent. On February 15, 2019, the trial court ordered defendant referred to county mental health for a recommendation regarding his placement and criminal proceedings were ordered continued.

On April 19, 2019, at the placement referral hearing under section 1368, the trial court committed defendant to the “appropriate facility designated by the State Department of State Hospitals [DSH]” for a maximum confinement time of two years. The court did not authorize the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication.

On July 11, 2019, DSH filed a petition to compel involuntary treatment pursuant to Penal Code section 1370, subdivision (a)(2)(d). Defendant filed a formal brief in opposition.

On July 24, 2019, after conducting a hearing on the petition, the trial court took the petition under submission. Later on the same day, the trial court granted DSH’s petition.

On July 26, 2019, defendant filed a notice of appeal.

B. FACTUAL HISTORY

At the July 24, 2019, hearing, Dr. Mendel Feldsher, a forensic psychiatrist performing postcommitment evaluations at Patton Sate Hospital, testified. He testified that he interviewed defendant on July 3, 2019, and reviewed defendant’s “Patton State Hospital medical record.” Dr. Feldsher diagnosed defendant as having an unspecified psychotic disorder, which required medication for treatment.

Dr. Feldsher described defendant as exhibiting aggressive behavior, including spitting on a nurse. Dr. Feldsher asked defendant why he spit on the nurse and defendant explained he didn’t want to take medication because it contained “nickel, mercury, and fibers in it” and his internal organs would be damaged. He thought the jail psychiatrist was trying to poison him, and the nurse “had something against [defendant.]” Defendant advised Dr. Feldsher he “was one hundred percent certain that he did not suffer from anything other than depression,” and did not want to take medication because it was unnecessary. Defendant stated “that he doesn’t believe he needs [medication] or could benefit from it.”

Dr. Feldsher opined that there were no other viable options to treat defendant other than anti-psychotic medication, and that defendant did not understand the risks and benefits of treatment, and that if left untreated, he would be at an increased risk of self-harm, suicide or physically harming other people. Dr. Feldsher stated: “It’s my opinion that there’s evidence to support that [defendant is] currently suffering adverse effects to his mental health in connection with not being adequately treated, and that is being evidenced by his ongoing expression of paranoid delusional ideas, as well as his alleged behavior at the time of his alleged offense.”

DISCUSSION

After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record. Pursuant to Anders, counsel identified the following issues to assist the court in its search of the record for error:

(1) Did the court err in permitting testimonial hearsay through the people’s expert?”

(2) Did the court err in refusing to permit appellant to testify?

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error, considered the issues listed by appellate counsel, and find no arguable issue for reversal on appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER

Acting P. J.

We concur:

SLOUGH

J.

RAPHAEL

J.