Court Opinion

ID: 9881667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 17:19:34.802749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:14:02.428907
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/3/23 P. v. Ginnett CA2/6

   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                         DIVISION SIX

 THE PEOPLE,                                                  2d Crim. No. B325631
                                                           (Super. Ct. No. 22PT-00670)
      Plaintiff and Respondent,                             (San Luis Obispo County)

 v.

 MARK GINNETT,

      Defendant and Appellant.

       The Board of Parole Hearings (Board) determined
appellant Mark Ginnett qualified as an offender with a mental
health disorder (OMHD; Pen. Code, §§ 2970, 2972).1 Appellant
filed a petition contesting this determination. He appeals the
trial court’s order denying his petition and committing him to
treatment claiming there was insufficient evidence. We affirm.
               FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       Appellant injured a correctional officer during an
altercation in jail. He pleaded guilty to three felony counts
arising from the incident and received a five year prison

         1 Unlabeled statutory cites are to the Penal Code.
sentence. As his release date neared, the Board determined
appellant qualified as an OMHD. Appellant contested the
determination by filing a petition and order for appointment of
counsel and hearing (petition). (§ 2966, subd. (b).) The trial
court denied the petition and ordered appellant committed to the
Department of State Hospitals for treatment under section 2962.
                            DISCUSSION
       Committing a prisoner to treatment as an OMHD requires
proving, among other things, a “severe mental health disorder
was one of the causes of, or was an aggravating factor in, the
commission of a crime for which the prisoner was sentenced to
prison.” (§ 2962, subd. (b).) 2 The crime committed must meet
two criteria: the defendant received a determinate sentence and
that it was one of the specified crimes, which includes a crime in
which the prisoner used force or violence, or caused serious bodily
injury. (Id., subd. (e).) Appellant does not challenge that the
crime for which he was allegedly convicted, battery on a peace
officer with the infliction of great bodily injury (§§ 243, subd.
(c)(2)(1) and 12022.7, subd. (a)(1)), would qualify him for
commitment. He instead contends the People’s evidence was not
“legally sufficient to actually establish the conviction occurred
and a sentence was imposed.” He argues the People needed to
produce an abstract of judgment or another “acceptable official

      2 A prisoner qualifies as an OMHD if:     (1) the prisoner has
a severe mental health disorder; (2) the disorder was one of the
causes of, or was an aggravating factor in, the commission of a
crime for which the prisoner was sentenced to prison; (3) the
prisoner received treatment for the disorder for 90 days or more
in the year prior to parole or release; (4) the prisoner represents a
serious danger of physical harm to others by reason of the
disorder; and (5) the underlying crime meets certain criteria.
(§ 2962, subds. (a)-(e).)

                                 2
document[]” from the Department of Corrections such as a RAP
sheet or prior packet to make this showing.
      We review OMHD commitment findings under the
substantial evidence standard. (People v. Labelle (2010) 190
Cal.App.4th 149, 151.) We view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the order and will affirm whenever the record shows
reasonable and credible evidence supporting the trier of fact’s
decision. (People v. Miller (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 913, 919-920,
disapproved on other grounds in People v. Stevens (2015) 62
Cal.4th 325, 336.)
      Section 2962, subdivision (f) authorizes the use of
“documentary evidence” to show that the underlying crime
involved the use of force or violence, or caused serious bodily
injury. Documentary evidence includes but is not limited to
“probation and sentencing reports, and evaluations by the State
Department of State Hospitals.” (§ 2962, subd. (f).) The statute
does not suggest, or limit, how the People may establish that a
conviction occurred or that a prison sentence was imposed.
(Compare § 1170, subd. (b)(3) [“the court may consider the
defendant’s prior convictions in determining [which term to
impose at] sentencing based on a certified record of conviction
without submitting the prior convictions to a jury”].)
      The People offered two exhibits among others: (1) a
Presentence Report prepared by the Sonoma County Probation
Department; and (2) an Admission Psychiatric Evaluation from
the Department of State Hospitals. Appellant did not object to
their admission. The Presentence Report describes the terms of
appellant’s plea of guilty to battery on a police officer (§ 243,
subd. (c)(2)) and indicated that in exchange for his plea the
parties agreed to a “[s]tipulated custody term of five years.” The
Admission Psychiatric Evaluation identifies the same crime as
his “Commitment/Controlling Offense” and stated that appellant

                                3
“was received in the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) on January 21, 2020.”
      These exhibits, together with the indisputable fact that
appellant was a prisoner, adequately established that a
“conviction occurred and a sentence was imposed” as required
under section 2962.
                          DISPOSITION
      The commitment order is affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                    CODY, J.

We concur:

     GILBERT, P.J.

     YEGAN, J.

                                4
                    Michael L. Duffy, Judge
           Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
               ______________________________

      Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill, Supervising Deputy
Attorney General, and Eric J. Kohm, Deputy Attorney General,
for Plaintiff and Respondent.