Court Opinion

ID: 9392638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-05 18:03:31.570604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:47.445812
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/5/23 P. v. J.S. 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                      E078409

 v.                                                                       (Super.Ct.No. FELSB21000087)

 J.S.,                                                                    OPINION

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Lorenzo R.

Balderrama, Judge. Affirmed.

         Barbara A. Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney

General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina, Stephanie

Chow and Tami Falkenstein Hennick, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and

Respondent.

                                                              1
                                    INTRODUCTION

        Defendant and appellant J.S. was committed to Porterville Developmental Center

(PDC) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 6500 in 2016, following a

determination that he was incompetent to stand trial. His commitment was renewed

annually after that. In January 2022, a trial court granted a section 6500 petition to

extend his commitment for another year. On appeal, defendant argues the commitment

order must be reversed since the proceedings were conducted in his absence, without any

on-the-record waiver of his presence. Respondent contends defendant waived his

appearance. We agree with respondent and affirm.

                            PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

        On July 15, 2021, the Inland Regional Center asked the San Bernardino County

District Attorney (the district attorney) to file a petition for commitment pursuant to

section 6500 on behalf of defendant. His current petition was set to expire on August 24,

2021.

        On July 29, 2021, the district attorney filed a petition for commitment of

defendant pursuant to section 6500.

        On October 4, 2021, the court held a hearing on the matter. Defendant was

present in court, out of custody. The minute order states: “Respondent present in court

and waives his right to be present at the next hearing date. Court waives the respondent’s

        1All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code
unless otherwise indicated.
                                              2
presence for the future hearing. Respondent not to be transported. Existing date

confirmed for 10/25/21.”2

       On October 25, 2021, a hearing was held with defendant represented by counsel.

The minute order states: “Matter continued for court trial. Respondent waived presence

at previous hearing.” It also states that the court trial was set for November 8, 2021, at

8:30 a.m., and that, “Respondent’s presence waived.”3

       The commitment trial began on November 15, 2021. The court began the

proceedings that morning in person, and defendant was not present but was represented

by counsel. The parties discussed a motion in limine. They then agreed to reconvene

later that morning by video conference. When they reconvened, the court asked if the

prosecutor wanted to call her first witness. The prosecutor stated, “I do. Before I do call

him, your Honor, I believe [defendant’s] appearance has been waived for these

proceedings, so I would ask that counsel stipulate to identification for purposes of the

trial?” Defense counsel responded, “Yes, his presence has been waived and I do

stipulate.” The court then stated, “The stipulation is that his presence is waived and that

[defendant] and his attorney stipulate to identification of [defendant] in this court trial.”

       The prosecutor proceeded to call Officer Jonathan Walsh, who testified that in

2015, he was dispatched to defendant’s home and arrived to find the victim, who had

       2   The appellate record does not contain the reporter’s transcript for this hearing.

       3  The appellate record does not contain the reporter’s transcript for this hearing.
It also does not contain a minute order or reporter’s transcript for any hearing on
November 8, 2021.
                                               3
lacerations on his arms. Defendant was taken into custody and read his Miranda4 rights,

and he admitted he stabbed the victim. The prosecutor next called Dr. Yung-Chung

Wong, who had evaluated defendant. She testified that he had been diagnosed with

schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, and moderate mental retardation. She opined that

he was a danger to himself and others. The matter was then continued to November 29,

2021.

        The parties appeared again by video on November 29, 2021. Defendant did not

appear but was represented by counsel. Both parties continued their questioning of Dr.

Wong. The matter was then continued to December 6, 2021.

        On December 6. 2021, the court called the matter in person and stated, at the

outset, “[Defendant] is not present. His presence is waived. He is represented in court

today by [defense counsel].” The prosecutor moved to submit some exhibits into

evidence, and defense counsel objected to one of the items. The court accepted the

evidence, then asked counsel what they wanted to do next. The prosecutor said she

wanted to summarize what she believed the evidence showed. Defense counsel stated,

“Your Honor, I don’t have any witnesses and [defendant] doesn’t wish to testify.” Both

counsel proceeded to make their closing statements. The court stated it would need a

little time to consider its ruling and set the next hearing for January 10, 2022. The court

stated, “It will be a nonappearance for [defendant]. [¶] I’ll make a note here. And I will

have my ruling on that day.”

        4   Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
                                             4
       On January 10, 2022, the court granted the section 6500 petition and referred the

matter to the Inland Regional Center for placement recommendation.

                                      DISCUSSION

                       Defendant Waived His Personal Appearance

       Defendant contends his section 6500 commitment trial was conducted in his

absence, without a valid waiver of his presence from either him or his counsel. He claims

even further that he was “denied his right to presence totally.” Defendant thus argues that

we should reverse the commitment order and conduct a new evidentiary trial, where he

“has the opportunity to be present or to properly waive his presence.” The record belies

defendant’s claims.

       In the absence of an affirmative showing that a patient is physically unable to

attend or has waived personal attendance, due process requires the physical presence of

the alleged mentally retarded person at section 6500 commitment proceedings. (People

v. Wilkinson (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 543, 549; In re Watson (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 455,

461-462; see People v. Fisher (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 (Fisher).)

       Here, the record reflects that defendant waived his personal appearance for his

section 6500 proceedings. The commitment trial took place over the course of four

days—on November 15, 2021, November 29, 2021, December 6, 2021, and January 10,

2022. Prior to that, the court held a hearing on the matter on October 4, 2021, where

defendant was present in court and waived his appearance for the proceedings. The

minute order for that hearing states: “Respondent present in court and waives his right to

be present at the next hearing date. Court waives the respondent’s presence for the future
                                             5
hearing.” Defendant now claims this waiver “only covered the very next hearing,” which

was a trial setting hearing on October 25, 2021. Defendant relies solely on the language

of the court’s minute order from the October 4, 2021 hearing (“waives his right to be

present at the next hearing”) to support this claim. However, that minute order merely

reflects the clerk’s wording of what occurred. Unfortunately, the record on appeal does

not contain the reporter’s transcript from that hearing for us to examine what actually

occurred.

       However, the record does confirm that defendant waived his personal appearance

for the section 6500 proceedings. The commitment trial began on November 15, 2021,

and the court and parties agreed to conduct it by video. At the outset, the court asked if

the prosecutor wanted to call her first witness. The prosecutor confirmed, but said,

“Before I do call him, your Honor, I believe [defendant’s] appearance has been waived

for these proceedings, so I would ask that counsel stipulate to identification for purposes

of the trial?” (Italics added.) Defense counsel responded, “Yes, his presence has been

waived and I do stipulate.” (Italics added.) The court then reiterated, “The stipulation is

that his presence is waived and that [defendant] and his attorney stipulate to identification

of [defendant] in this court trial.” In other words, defense counsel confirmed that

defendant waived his presence for the entire section 6500 proceeding, not just for the

October 25, 2021 trial setting hearing, as defendant now claims. Accordingly, defendant

did not appear at the hearings that followed, and the court properly noted at the outset of

those hearings either that his presence was waived or that he was not present but was

represented by counsel.
                                              6
           As to defendant’s claim that he was “denied” the right to be present, the record

clearly does not support that claim. We further note that his absence from court for the

commitment trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (See Fisher, supra, 172

Cal.App.4th at p. 1014.) Defense counsel thoroughly cross-examined the prosecutor’s

witnesses. Moreover, defense counsel informed the court that defendant did not wish to

testify.

           Ultimately, the record reflects that defendant properly waived his appearance for

the section 6500 proceedings.

                                             DISPOSITION

           The commitment order is affirmed.

           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                   FIELDS
                                                                                               J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ
                           P. J.

SLOUGH
                              J.

                                                7