F iled 6/19/15 P. v. W atts CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANDREW BRIAN WATTS,

Defendant and Appellant. H04 1302 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 169048 )

On December 15, 1980, appellant Andrew Brian Watts went into a psychotic rage at his parents’ home and strangled his father to death. He did not believe his father was

dead

, so to slow his father down, he cut off his legs with a knife and a machete and
poured sugar on his body

, believing it was cyanide. Later
, he stole his father ’ s van and
drove to Salt Lake City, Utah. He was arrested in Utah on December 18, 1980.

A ppellant has always maintained that the person he murde red was not his father, but a
duplicate of his father

. Appellant was found not guilty by reason of insanity and

committed to the state hospital system.
In 1993, while released to an outpatient treatment program

, appellant became

combative and assaulted several police officers. He thought the police officers were
going to take him to South San Francisco to nail him on the cross. According to
appellant, Jesus is also nailed on the cross in South San Francisco. He was charged with
assault and battery, found not guilty by reason of insanity, and again committed to the2

state hospital system. He was diagnosed with Schizophrenia, paranoid type, and
polysubstance dependence. Appellant has been in and out of the state hospital system

a nd the community release program since that time. 1

On March 11, 2014 , the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office filed a
petition seeking to extend appellant ’ s commitment for an additional two years pursuant to

Penal Code sections 1026 and 1026.5. On July 18, 2014, appellant and his attorney
waived his right to a jury trial. At the ensuing court trial, appellant’s treating physician
testified about appellant’s mental health issues , including his ongoing delusions and his

refusal to acknowledge th at he suffers from a mental disorder . She also testified that
appellant does not understand the connection between his mental disorder and his crim es,

nor does he a cknowledge that he murdered his father. She also stated that i f appellant

were not under court order to take his medication s , he would not do so because of the

side effects of the drugs

, and because he does not believe he needs them

. Based on her knowledge of appellant’s treatment history and her personal experience with appellant,

she concluded that i f he were not medicated and came under stress , he would be at a high
risk for acting on his delusional beliefs and would be a danger to others. As a result, she
did not believe appellant was suitable for release ( condi tional or unconditional ) at th is

time.

A t trial, a ppellant testified on his own behalf. He denied suffering from mental
illness and stated that he had the resources to be unconditionally released from the

1 The factual recitation here is limited to the facts necessary to dispose of this appeal pursuant to People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 ( Serrano ) . On the

c ourt’s own motion, we take judicial notice of People v. Watts ( April . 29, 201 4

, H0 40019 ) [nonpub. opn.] and People v. Watts (Aug. 29, 2013, H038825) [nonpub. opn.], where this court considered appeal s by appellant from earlier recommitment proceeding s related to the 1993 assault

. ( Santa Clara County Superior Court N o. 169048.) We also take judicial notice of People v. Watts (Dec

. 16, 2010, H035049) [nonpub. opn.], an appeal by appellant from an earlier recommitment proceeding relating to the homicide of his father. ( Santa Clara County Superior Court N o. 78100.) A more complete recita tion of the factual and procedural background appears in those appeals.3

hospital. During his testimony, he stated that Andrew Watts had been killed at Napa
State Hospital by three doctors , and that he was actually Andrew Mathew, someone with

some of the memories of Andrew Watts. Appellant explained that Andrew Watts was his

father and that appellant had come to the hospit al to investigate who had killed his father.

On cross

- examination, he testified that Andrew Watts had been framed by his u ncle,
Larry Watts
, for the death of Paul Watts (appellant’s brother) , but that Paul Watts was
actually still alive. Appellant further stated that he could travel through time, and that

there was another parallel time line where he was serving with the marines in
Afghanistan

. On July 22, 2014, the trial court found that appellant was subject to continued

commitment and ordered h is commitment extended to September 16, 2016. Appellant
filed a timely notice of appeal on August 4, 2014.

W e appointed counsel to represent appellant in this court. Appointed counsel filed
an opening brief pursuant to Serrano
, supra , 211 Cal.App.4th 496 , which states the case
and the facts but raises no specific issues

. Pursuant to Serrano, on February 27, 2015

, we notified appellant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within

30 days. On March 30, 2015

, we received a supplemental brief from appellant. In his
supplemental brief , appellant contends the recommitment petition was not supported by

substantial evidence because (1) there was no evidence of his dangerousness, and (2) the
court was biased in determining his identit y, his c onvictions and the allegations against

him . He also requests permission to submit additional evidence of his claims regarding
his identity. Finally, he argues that there is exculpatory evidence available in the Andrew

Watts case.
Appellant does not explain why t he testimony of the treating psychologist
regarding his dangerousness is insufficient to support the order. This testimony and appellant’s own testimony provided ample evidence to support the order of

recommitment. A dditional evide nce regarding hi s identity and exculpatory evidence4

re lating to his underlying conviction are not relevant to this appeal , which is an appeal

from an order of recommitment. Finally, appellant fails to point to any specific act of

bias by the trial court. The court’s acceptance of the appellant’s identity as Andrew

Watts does not demonstrate bias. N othing in appellant’s brief raises an arguable issue on
appeal from the order of recommitment. ( People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 .)
Therefore, we decline to retain the case.
The appellant having failed to raise any arguable issue on appeal, we shall dismiss
the appeal. ( Serrano
, supra , 211 Cal.App.4th at pp. 503

- 504.)
Disposition
The appeal is dismissed.5 _________________________ MÁRQUEZ, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________ ELIA , ACTING P.J.

_________________________ WALSH , J. *

* Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.