Court Opinion

ID: 9839994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 21:03:52.072863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:16.539337
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/14/23 San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency v. Nikita A. CA4/1
                   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.

                 COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                       DIVISION ONE

                                              STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND                                                  D081790
HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

          Petitioner and Respondent,
                                                                             (Super. Ct. No. HC26155)
          v.

NIKITA A.,

          Defendant and Appellant.

          APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Laura J. Birkmeyer, Judge. Affirmed.
          Laura Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
          Anjana Pottathil, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and
Respondent.
          Nikita A. suffers from bipolar I disorder with manic history and
methamphetamine abuse. After Nikita was taken into custody under a
Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150 hold, the trial court ordered him
to undergo up to 180 days of involuntary post-certification treatment under
section 5300, subdivision (a)(2).
      Before issuing the order, the court heard testimony from Nikita’s
treating psychiatrist, Graham Scanlon, and special agent Kevin Shead, who
had been investigating suspicious activity reports for Nikita. The evidence
included, among other things, social media posts in which Nikita expressed
his desire to date a “17-year-old bitch in high school” and “kidnap[ ]” a high
school girl, which he acknowledged was “a bad idea.” Nikita did not,
however, limit himself to these musings. He also visited a local high school
and posted a sign seeking a 17-year-old girl to date. At the close of evidence,
the trial court found that San Diego County Health and Human Services
Agency (County) had proved beyond a reasonable doubt the elements
required under section 5300, subdivision (a)(2), including that Nikita
“attempted to inflict physical harm upon a person of another.”
      On appeal, Nikita challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that he
attempted to physically harm another person. He asserts that his social
media posts and actions at the high school do not reflect an intent to
physically harm anyone. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to
the judgment and accepting all reasonable inferences that the court might
have drawn, as we must, we disagree. We conclude that substantial evidence
supports the trial court’s finding, and thus affirm the judgment.
                                        I.
                                        A.
      A psychiatrist diagnosed Nikita with bipolar I disorder with manic
history and methamphetamine abuse. From about December 2022 until he
was taken into custody in mid-February 2023, Nikita used
methamphetamine every day.
      On February 5, 2023, Nikita was arrested for a domestic violence
incident involving his ex-girlfriend.

                                        2
      Around February 14, 2023, Nikita voiced his desire to find a minor to
date on Facebook. In one post, he wrote:
         I should find a 17-year-old bitch in high school to date
         because maybe her fuckin [sic] stupid mind wouldn’t be as
         corrupted as everyone else’s is and she will listen to me
         when I speak words to her and respond with her own words
         spoken at me, but it seems like to [sic] much work to go out
         and find one because I don’t know any and I don’t want to
         spend more than 5 seconds looking for one[.]

In another post, he shared his thought about “kidnapping” a high school
student, though he observed that it was “a bad idea”:
         Yesterday I posted two signs on my local high school to
         hopefully find a date. Women that are older than 20 years
         old have some weird type of retardation, probably as a
         result of watching too much television and movies, so I
         don’t want to date them. I need a younger woman.

         I was thinking about kidnapping some woman from high
         school (a student) and taking her to wherever I go, but
         that’s a bad idea because that doesn’t make any sense.

      These posts were not idle musings. As indicated on Facebook, Nikita
went to a local high school and placed a sign about how he, a 33-year-old
man, sought a 17-year-old girl “for a potential relationship.” He also posted
to Facebook a photo of a car parked outside a high school with a caption
asking why no one was there. The assistant principal saw a vehicle with a
license plate known to belong to Nikita.
      Nikita’s actions at the high school and his social media posts came to
special agent Shead’s attention as suspicious activity reports. After
investigating, Shead had Nikita contacted for a section 5150 assessment.
      Around the same time, Nikita lost his job. On February 15, 2023,
Nikita returned to his former office and was “difficult with security.” The

                                       3
police got involved and took Nikita into custody for treatment under a
section 5150 hold.
      While in treatment, Nikita came under the care of Scanlon, a
psychiatrist who diagnosed him with bipolar I disorder with manic history
and methamphetamine abuse. The dual diagnosis concerned Scanlon
because Nikita “gets very violent” when using methamphetamine.
      On March 3, 2023, Scanlon petitioned to continue Nikita’s involuntary
treatment under section 5300. He and Shead submitted affidavits in support.
                                        B.
      On March 8, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on the section 5300
petition. Scanlon and Shead testified. Scanlon stated that he and Nikita
discussed the Facebook posts described above, and Nikita admitted to writing
them. Nikita claimed, however, that he was “just kidding” and did not intend
to hurt anyone. Scanlon also testified about Nikita’s February 5, 2023 arrest
for domestic violence involving his ex-girlfriend, which Scanlon believed
reflected Nikita’s intent to harm another person. Both Scanlon and Shead
testified that Nikita still presented a danger of harming others.
      The trial court found that the County met its burden to prove all
components required to extend Nikita’s confinement for treatment under
section 5300, subdivision (a)(2). Relevant to this appeal, the trial court found
that Nikita “had attempted to inflict physical harm” on someone else. In
support, the court cited the “frightening combination” of Nikita’s social media
posts and his visit to a high school to display the sign to find a girl. Nikita’s
actions at the school, in the trial court’s view, met the definition of “attempt”
as used in section 5300. Therefore, the court ordered Nikita to undergo post-
certification treatment with a licensed health facility in San Diego for a
period not to exceed 180 days.

                                        4
                                           II.
                                           A.
          Nikita’s period of court-ordered treatment ended on September 4, 2023.
Although the appeal is arguably moot, this case raises an issue capable of
repetition but likely to evade review. Accordingly, we exercise our discretion
to decide this appeal. (Conservatorship of K.P. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 695, 705,
fn. 3.)
                                           B.
          Section 5300, subdivision (a)(2), in relevant part, requires a finding of
dangerousness before a person may be confined for further treatment of up to
180 days. (In re Qawi (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1, 20.) Specifically, it requires a
finding of “recent acts or threats of violence”: here, that Nikita attempted to
physically harm another person. (Ibid.; § 5300, subd. (a)(2).) The party
seeking confinement must prove this element beyond a reasonable doubt.
(Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 541.)
          Nikita argues that the trial court lacked sufficient evidence to support
this dangerousness finding. Our scope of review for this type of challenge
“begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial
evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the judgment.”
(Quintanilla v. Dunkelman (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 95, 114.) We review the
whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment. (Conservatorship of
S.A. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 48, 54.) We accept logical inferences that the
factfinder might have drawn from the evidence, even if we would have
concluded otherwise. (People v. Shamblin (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1, 10.)
Thus, to succeed, the appellant must establish that no rational factfinder
could have reached the same conclusion as the trial court. (Id. at p. 9.)

                                           5
      Here, Nikita asserts that the evidence does not support a finding that
he attempted to inflict physical harm on someone else because, in his view,
no evidence shows that he intended to commit a violent act. We disagree.
      Based on our review of the record, the trial court could infer from the
evidence presented that Nikita attempted to inflict physical harm on another
person. First, Nikita’s recent arrest for domestic violence involving his ex-
girlfriend could foretell how he might treat any future romantic partner.
Second, after assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Nikita focused on “find[ing] a 17-
year-old bitch in high school to date[.]” Third, Nikita posted about
kidnapping a high school student and “taking her to wherever I go.” Under
Penal Code section 207, a person that “forcibly” takes, holds, or detains
another person and “carries the person” into another location is guilty of
kidnapping. Similarly, the term “kidnap” means “to seize and detain or carry
away by unlawful force or fraud.” (Merriam-Webster Dict. Online (2023)
<https://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kidnap> [as of Sep. 14, 2023].) The
trial court logically could infer that Nikita’s kidnapping of a high school girl
would involve physical harm.
      Nikita argues that neither the “concerning thoughts” nor “socially
questionable behavior” of an adult wanting to date a minor can justify
involuntarily commitment under this statute. He tries to downplay his
kidnapping post as a “musing” that he immediately disregarded as a “bad
idea.” Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment
(Conservatorship of S.A., supra, 57 Cal.App.5th at p. 54.), however, the trial
court reasonably could find that Nikita visited a high school to kidnap a 17-
year-old girl. As a result, we conclude that substantial evidence supported
the trial court’s finding that Nikita attempted to inflict physical harm on
another person within the meaning of section 5300.

                                        6
                               III.
     We affirm the judgment.

                                      CASTILLO, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

KELETY, J.

                                7