1

Filed 6/17/13 P. v. Townsend CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

REBIO TOWNSEND,

Defendant and Appellant.

C071855

(Super. Ct. No. 07F04974)

In 2008, defendant pled no contest to possession of a destructive device (a 

Molotov cocktail) and admitted previously being convicted of a strike offense and 

serving a term in prison. Consistent with his plea, defendant was sentenced to an 

aggregate term of two years and eight months in state prison. 

Defendant‟s custody was later transferred from the Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation to the Department of Mental Health and in June 2011, the People 

petitioned to extend defendant‟s commitment as a mentally disordered offender pursuant 

to Penal Code section 2970. Those proceedings were continued until June 2012 when the 

People filed a second petition to extend defendant‟s commitment for an additional year. 
2

In support of the People‟s second petition, they submitted the affidavit of Jeanne 

Garcia, M.D., medical director at Atascadero State Hospital. In Dr. Garcia‟s opinion, 

defendant “qualifies for continued treatment . . . in that his severe mental disorder is not 

in remission and cannot be kept in remission.” Attached to Dr. Garcia‟s affidavit is a 

forensic report dated March 16, 2012, prepared by Brandi Mathews, Ph.D. 

To prepare her report, Dr. Mathews reviewed defendant‟s medical records and 

numerous legal documents. Dr. Mathews also consulted with defendant‟s treating 

psychologist. She intended to interview defendant but “treatment staff indicated 

[defendant was exhibiting] recent increased levels of agitation . . . .” Thus, Dr. Mathews 

did not interview defendant. 

As noted by Dr. Mathews, defendant was previously diagnosed with 

schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. Based on her review of defendant‟s historical 

information and current “presentation” at Atascadero, Dr. Mathews agreed with that 

diagnosis. 

In support of her opinion, Dr. Mathews cataloged defendant‟s “well-documented” 

history of psychiatric treatment dating back to defendant‟s first psychotic break in 1978. 

She described defendant‟s history of “both psychotic and mood symptoms,” which 

include, among other symptoms: auditory hallucinations, grandiosity, decreased need for 

sleep, and paranoia. According to defendant‟s medical records, the symptoms of his 

“severe mental disorder are not controlled by medication and/or psychosocial support.” 

By reviewing defendant‟s recent progress notes at Atascadero, Dr. Mathews 

learned that defendant continued to exhibit “significant mood symptoms.” She noted 

defendant continued to demonstrate paranoia and “mood lability.” Other progress notes 

reported defendant exhibiting “increased agitation” and irritability. Defendant was 

further described in the progress notes as “[using] loud speech, pacing the unit, and being 

intrusive with others.” Based on her review of defendant‟s records, and the reporting of 

defendant‟s “overt symptoms,” Dr. Mathews concluded that defendant‟s “severe mental 
3

disorder” was not in remission, and as a result of defendant‟s severe mental disorder, he 

represented a “substantial danger of physical harm to others.” 

To support her conclusions, Dr. Mathews outlined defendant‟s history of violent 

and aggressive behavior. Dr. Mathews also described three more recent incidents where 

defendant‟s aggression and agitation required him to be placed in restraints and/or 

sequestered. 

Dr. Mathews also indicated that defendant “has limited insight into his severe 

mental disorder and the importance of medications.” Defendant repeatedly refused his 

medications so was twice placed on an involuntary medication order, and his attendance 

at his treatment group meetings was “inconsistent.” Defendant even told his treating 

psychiatrist that he would not take his medications “ „on the outside,‟ ” because 

defendant believed “ „there [was] nothing wrong with [him].‟ ” 

In addition to his continued mood symptoms and violent conduct, Dr. Mathews 

noted defendant‟s extensive history with drug and alcohol abuse, as well as his lengthy 

criminal history (including five felony convictions). In Dr. Mathews‟s opinion, 

defendant met the criteria for extending his commitment. 

On August 10, 2012, a hearing was held on the People‟s petition. The People 

submitted the matter based on the documents filed with the court. Defendant was invited 

to speak on his own behalf but refused. Based on the petition filed by the People, the 

recommendation of Dr. Garcia, and Dr. Mathews‟s March 16, 2012 report, the court 

ordered defendant‟s commitment extended for one year, to November 8, 2013. 

Defendant appealed.

DISCUSSION

Counsel for defendant filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and 

asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable 

issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by 
4

counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the 

opening brief. We received two supplemental briefs from defendant. 

Defendant‟s first supplemental brief was filed on March 26, 2013, and included a 

request to relieve appointed counsel. On April 8, 2013, this court denied defendant‟s 

request to relieve appointed counsel. 

Defendant raised several issues in his supplemental brief regarding the process by 

which his commitment was extended. In addition to defendant‟s over-arching concern 

that people are telling lies about him, he contends it was error for the court to rely on 

Dr. Mathews‟s report because Dr. Mathews never met defendant. 

First, there is no evidence in the record that anything included in the record is 

untrue, including the information contained within Dr. Mathews‟s report. Second, as an 

expert, Dr. Mathews is permitted to form her opinion regarding defendant‟s mental state 

based on information “made known to h[er] at or before the hearing, whether or not 

admissible, that is of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming 

an opinion upon the subject to which h[er] testimony relates . . . .” (Evid. Code, § 801, 

subd. (b).) Thus, Dr. Mathews was under no obligation to interview defendant. 

Moreover, she formed her opinion regarding defendant‟s mental status after reviewing 

treatment notes and medical records prepared by defendant‟s treatment providers, as well 

as reports about defendant‟s mental health prepared by other experts. Such reliance was 

entirely permissible. (Ibid.)

Defendant also contends he was “unlawfully arrested.” It is not entirely clear from 

defendant‟s supplemental brief to which arrest he is referring; however, defendant‟s most 

recent conviction was in 2008. Thus, the time to raise issues regarding any arrest that 

lead to any of his convictions has long since passed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.308(a) 

[notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days of judgment being entered].)

Defendant filed a second supplemental brief in this court on May 8, 2013. The 

brief, which is four pages long and handwritten, is primarily a description of defendant‟s 
5

life. At the end of his brief, however, defendant again asks this court to relieve appointed 

counsel. Defendant‟s request is denied.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error 

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. 

 ROBIE , J.

We concur:

 RAYE , P. J.

 HOCH , J.