Opinion ID: 2631141
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Allen's Status

Text: In April 2003, nearly six months before Allen's commitment was to terminate, the medical director of Napa State Hospital sent a letter to the district attorney recommending he seek the extension of Allen's recommitment, which was to end on October 14, 2003. The March 17, 2003 evaluation on Allen noted: He has made little progress during the past year. His motivation level is poor and he is unable to get involved toward meeting discharge criteria due to his significant delusional and psychotic symptoms. [Despite] drug regimen changes, his response remains poor. . . . [¶] He is suffering from a major mental illness, not in remission, and still shows signs and symptoms of severe mental disorder. By reason of severe mental disorder he represents a substantial danger to himself and others, [¶] It is the recommendation of the treatment team that a petition be filed with the Superior Court for continued involuntary treatment for one year. More recent events illustrating Allen's current mental state include: On November 2, 2005, a jury found the petition alleging Allen to be an MDO to be true, and Allen was ordered committed for another year until October 14, 2006. Another petition seeking to extend Allen's commitment to October 14, 2007 is currently pending. In a May 29, 2007 letter to the Santa Clara County District Attorney, the acting medical director of Napa State Hospital opined that Allen still suffers from a severe mental disorder under the MDO Act, and requested the district attorney file a petition for continued involuntary treatment under the Act. Because Allen has been evaluated and treated only under the MDO Act up to this point, there has been no occasion to determine whether Allen would be subject to the requirements of the LPS Act. (See ante, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d at pp. 135-136, 164 P.3d at pp. 565-566.) Thus, we underscore that our decision should not be construed as requiring Allen's release if he is still in need of mental health treatment. Assuming he still requires such treatment, we presume that responsible parties will take appropriate steps to ensure Allen receives custodial treatment, for as long as is necessary, under the LPS Act. One final, important note: We urge district attorneys and other responsible parties to ensure that recommitment petitions are timely filed to avoid situations like this; likewise, we understand it is unrealistic to assume that there will be no late petitions. There may be good cause for the delay in some cases. Thus, we also urge the Legislature to recognize this reality and specifically address the consequences of untimely petitions.