Filed 9/14/23 San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency v. Nikita A. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

NIKITA A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D081790

 (Super. Ct. No. HC26155)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Laura J. Birkmeyer, Judge. Affirmed. 

Laura Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant. 

Anjana Pottathil, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and 

Respondent. 

Nikita A. suffers from bipolar I disorder with manic history and 

methamphetamine abuse. After Nikita was taken into custody under a 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150 hold, the trial court ordered him 

to undergo up to 180 days of involuntary post-certification treatment under 

section 5300, subdivision (a)(2). 
2

Before issuing the order, the court heard testimony from Nikita’s 

treating psychiatrist, Graham Scanlon, and special agent Kevin Shead, who 

had been investigating suspicious activity reports for Nikita. The evidence 

included, among other things, social media posts in which Nikita expressed

his desire to date a “17-year-old bitch in high school” and “kidnap[ ]” a high 

school girl, which he acknowledged was “a bad idea.” Nikita did not, 

however, limit himself to these musings. He also visited a local high school 

and posted a sign seeking a 17-year-old girl to date. At the close of evidence, 

the trial court found that San Diego County Health and Human Services 

Agency (County) had proved beyond a reasonable doubt the elements 

required under section 5300, subdivision (a)(2), including that Nikita 

“attempted to inflict physical harm upon a person of another.” 

On appeal, Nikita challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that he 

attempted to physically harm another person. He asserts that his social 

media posts and actions at the high school do not reflect an intent to 

physically harm anyone. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to 

the judgment and accepting all reasonable inferences that the court might 

have drawn, as we must, we disagree. We conclude that substantial evidence 

supports the trial court’s finding, and thus affirm the judgment. 

I.

A.

A psychiatrist diagnosed Nikita with bipolar I disorder with manic 

history and methamphetamine abuse. From about December 2022 until he 

was taken into custody in mid-February 2023, Nikita used 

methamphetamine every day. 

On February 5, 2023, Nikita was arrested for a domestic violence 

incident involving his ex-girlfriend. 
3

Around February 14, 2023, Nikita voiced his desire to find a minor to 

date on Facebook. In one post, he wrote: 

I should find a 17-year-old bitch in high school to date 

because maybe her fuckin [sic] stupid mind wouldn’t be as 

corrupted as everyone else’s is and she will listen to me 

when I speak words to her and respond with her own words 

spoken at me, but it seems like to [sic] much work to go out 

and find one because I don’t know any and I don’t want to 

spend more than 5 seconds looking for one[.]

In another post, he shared his thought about “kidnapping” a high school 

student, though he observed that it was “a bad idea”: 

Yesterday I posted two signs on my local high school to 

hopefully find a date. Women that are older than 20 years 

old have some weird type of retardation, probably as a 

result of watching too much television and movies, so I 

don’t want to date them. I need a younger woman. 

I was thinking about kidnapping some woman from high 

school (a student) and taking her to wherever I go, but 

that’s a bad idea because that doesn’t make any sense.

These posts were not idle musings. As indicated on Facebook, Nikita 

went to a local high school and placed a sign about how he, a 33-year-old 

man, sought a 17-year-old girl “for a potential relationship.” He also posted 

to Facebook a photo of a car parked outside a high school with a caption 

asking why no one was there. The assistant principal saw a vehicle with a 

license plate known to belong to Nikita. 

Nikita’s actions at the high school and his social media posts came to 

special agent Shead’s attention as suspicious activity reports. After 

investigating, Shead had Nikita contacted for a section 5150 assessment. 

Around the same time, Nikita lost his job. On February 15, 2023, 

Nikita returned to his former office and was “difficult with security.” The 
4

police got involved and took Nikita into custody for treatment under a 

section 5150 hold. 

While in treatment, Nikita came under the care of Scanlon, a 

psychiatrist who diagnosed him with bipolar I disorder with manic history 

and methamphetamine abuse. The dual diagnosis concerned Scanlon 

because Nikita “gets very violent” when using methamphetamine. 

On March 3, 2023, Scanlon petitioned to continue Nikita’s involuntary

treatment under section 5300. He and Shead submitted affidavits in support. 

B.

On March 8, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on the section 5300 

petition. Scanlon and Shead testified. Scanlon stated that he and Nikita 

discussed the Facebook posts described above, and Nikita admitted to writing

them. Nikita claimed, however, that he was “just kidding” and did not intend

to hurt anyone. Scanlon also testified about Nikita’s February 5, 2023 arrest 

for domestic violence involving his ex-girlfriend, which Scanlon believed

reflected Nikita’s intent to harm another person. Both Scanlon and Shead 

testified that Nikita still presented a danger of harming others. 

The trial court found that the County met its burden to prove all 

components required to extend Nikita’s confinement for treatment under 

section 5300, subdivision (a)(2). Relevant to this appeal, the trial court found 

that Nikita “had attempted to inflict physical harm” on someone else. In 

support, the court cited the “frightening combination” of Nikita’s social media 

posts and his visit to a high school to display the sign to find a girl. Nikita’s 

actions at the school, in the trial court’s view, met the definition of “attempt” 

as used in section 5300. Therefore, the court ordered Nikita to undergo postcertification treatment with a licensed health facility in San Diego for a 

period not to exceed 180 days. 
5

II.

A.

Nikita’s period of court-ordered treatment ended on September 4, 2023. 

Although the appeal is arguably moot, this case raises an issue capable of 

repetition but likely to evade review. Accordingly, we exercise our discretion 

to decide this appeal. (Conservatorship of K.P. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 695, 705, 

fn. 3.) 

B.

Section 5300, subdivision (a)(2), in relevant part, requires a finding of 

dangerousness before a person may be confined for further treatment of up to

180 days. (In re Qawi (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1, 20.) Specifically, it requires a 

finding of “recent acts or threats of violence”: here, that Nikita attempted to 

physically harm another person. (Ibid.; § 5300, subd. (a)(2).) The party 

seeking confinement must prove this element beyond a reasonable doubt. 

(Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 541.)

Nikita argues that the trial court lacked sufficient evidence to support 

this dangerousness finding. Our scope of review for this type of challenge

“begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial 

evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the judgment.”

(Quintanilla v. Dunkelman (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 95, 114.) We review the 

whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment. (Conservatorship of 

S.A. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 48, 54.) We accept logical inferences that the 

factfinder might have drawn from the evidence, even if we would have 

concluded otherwise. (People v. Shamblin (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1, 10.) 

Thus, to succeed, the appellant must establish that no rational factfinder 

could have reached the same conclusion as the trial court. (Id. at p. 9.) 
6

Here, Nikita asserts that the evidence does not support a finding that 

he attempted to inflict physical harm on someone else because, in his view, 

no evidence shows that he intended to commit a violent act. We disagree. 

Based on our review of the record, the trial court could infer from the 

evidence presented that Nikita attempted to inflict physical harm on another 

person. First, Nikita’s recent arrest for domestic violence involving his exgirlfriend could foretell how he might treat any future romantic partner. 

Second, after assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Nikita focused on “find[ing] a 17-

year-old bitch in high school to date[.]” Third, Nikita posted about 

kidnapping a high school student and “taking her to wherever I go.” Under 

Penal Code section 207, a person that “forcibly” takes, holds, or detains 

another person and “carries the person” into another location is guilty of 

kidnapping. Similarly, the term “kidnap” means “to seize and detain or carry 

away by unlawful force or fraud.” (Merriam-Webster Dict. Online (2023) 

<https://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kidnap> [as of Sep. 14, 2023].) The

trial court logically could infer that Nikita’s kidnapping of a high school girl

would involve physical harm. 

Nikita argues that neither the “concerning thoughts” nor “socially 

questionable behavior” of an adult wanting to date a minor can justify

involuntarily commitment under this statute. He tries to downplay his 

kidnapping post as a “musing” that he immediately disregarded as a “bad 

idea.” Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment 

(Conservatorship of S.A., supra, 57 Cal.App.5th at p. 54.), however, the trial 

court reasonably could find that Nikita visited a high school to kidnap a 17-

year-old girl. As a result, we conclude that substantial evidence supported 

the trial court’s finding that Nikita attempted to inflict physical harm on 

another person within the meaning of section 5300. 
7

III.

We affirm the judgment. 

CASTILLO, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

KELETY, J.