People v. Regan CA5

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedSeptember 14, 2016
DocketF071028
StatusUnpublished

This text of People v. Regan CA5 (People v. Regan CA5) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Regan CA5, (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Filed 9/13/16 P. v. Regan CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F071028 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCR023744) v.

SHANNA LAYNE REGAN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Joseph A. Soldani, Judge. Rachel Lederman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and Paul E. O’Connor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Smith, J. INTRODUCTION Appellant Shanna Layne Regan contends substantial evidence does not support extension of her commitment pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1026.5, subdivision (b). We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On January 9, 2006, a complaint was filed charging Regan with a violation of section 4502, subdivision (a) and Business and Professions Code section 4140. The complaint alleged that Regan had three prior serious or violent felony convictions, including a robbery conviction in 1991 and a robbery and kidnapping conviction in 1994. On November 13, 2006, the trial court appointed Doctors Robert Taylor and Michael Zimmerman to assess Regan’s sanity pursuant to section 1026. On January 19, 2007, Regan signed a plea form and waiver of rights. The plea form noted that Regan faced a sentence of 25 years to life if convicted of the section 4502, subdivision (a) offense, a felony, because of her prior strike offenses. In exchange for a plea of guilty to the section 4502 offense, it was agreed that two of Regan’s prior strikes and the other charge would be dismissed. The trial court accepted Regan’s plea and dismissed the other charge and two of the strike offenses. A court trial on Regan’s sanity was held and the trial court found that due to a “psychotic and depressed state,” Regan “did not have the capacity to understand the nature and quality of her actions and was not able to differentiate right from wrong” at the time of the offense. On February 6, 2007, the trial court issued an order committing Regan to Patton State Hospital for a period not to exceed eight years. On October 9, 2014, the People filed a motion to extend Regan’s civil commitment pursuant to section 1026.5, subdivision (b). The motion asserted that Regan currently was receiving treatment at Metropolitan State Hospital (Metropolitan) and the

1 References to code sections are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

2. Metropolitan staff were of the opinion that Regan posed a substantial danger of physical harm to others by reason of mental disease, defect, or disorder. The staff recommended an extension of commitment pursuant to section 1026.5, subdivision (b) and had recommended the District Attorney seek an extension of Regan’s commitment. Attached to the petition were an evaluation of Regan’s current mental condition by a staff psychiatrist and the medical director’s recommendation for an extension of commitment. A jury trial on the petition to extend commitment commenced on January 6, 2015. Dr. Alicia Johnson, a forensic psychologist at Metropolitan, testified that she had been Regan’s primary psychologist since 2012. Johnson diagnosed Regan as having the following conditions: bipolar one disorder, depressed, severe, with psychotic feature; polysubstance dependence; borderline personality disorder; and antisocial personality disorder. Symptoms of Regan’s bipolar disorder included depression, suicidal ideation, mania, and a history of irritability which can lead to aggressive thoughts, which had “been characterizing her more recently within the past year.” In December 2012, Regan made a suicide attempt; in 2014, Regan indicated she was “33 percent contemplating suicide.” Regan also had a problem with substance abuse while hospitalized; she had inappropriately used Wellbrutin, Tramadol, and Ativan. Johnson discussed Regan’s criminal history while incarcerated; in 2005, Regan was in possession of a razor; another time, Regan physically attacked another patient who was in restraints. Regan was sensitive to loud noises and other patients could trigger an angry response from her. Regan had a history of sabotaging her own treatment. Regan had told nurses she cannot use coping skills; she just wants medication. Johnson “can’t count how many times [Regan] has made statements of violence” in order to obtain emergency medication.

3. There was a strong connection between Regan’s diagnosis, suicidal ideation, substance abuse, relationship instability, and criminal behavior. Johnson opined that if released into the community, Regan would be at great risk of hurting other people. Factors weighing against a release were Regan’s lack of insight into her illness, substance abuse, and risk for violence; her reliance on medications, including emergency medications; her failure to follow treatment plans; and instability of symptoms. Johnson testified that Regan should not be released into the community due to a combination of factors including mental illness, craving for substances, violent tendencies, and verbalization of threats. Dr. Christina Rim, a forensic psychiatrist at Metropolitan, also testified. Metropolitan is a controlled setting, with 24 hour-a-day treatment in a locked facility. Rim diagnosed Regan as having bipolar disorder, depressed, severe, with psychotic features; polysubstance dependence; antisocial personality disorder; and borderline personality disorder. Regan had been depressed for most of the past year. Regan had been on anti- psychotic medication for the past year; consequently, Rim had not witnessed any psychotic episodes in the past year. Regan had received medication in April 2013 because she was hearing voices. Rim had seen Regan exhibit poor frustration tolerance, difficulties with anger management, and poor relationships, all indicative of borderline personality disorder. Regan’s disregard for the rules of the unit where she was housed and the use of illicit substances by obtaining them from other patients were indicative of antisocial personality disorder. Regan attempted to get over a fence and leave the facility in 2012. Antisocial personality disorder is minimized in a structured, locked, treatment setting like Metropolitan. Rim opined that Regan had impaired judgment and insight with respect to her mental illness. Regan’s mental illness was a chronic condition, which could be managed

4. with medication and by managing stressors. The fact that Regan has multiple disorders increases the risk of behaviors that are dangerous to others. The overall combination is difficult to manage; Regan needed an extensive combination of treatment. Rim opined that Regan’s disorders were aggravating one another. Regan was too dangerous to be released into the community, because her symptoms and behaviors were not being managed; therapy and medications were not sufficient. Regan made continuous threats; was unable to use her coping skills; exhibited poor frustration tolerance; and had difficulties with anger management. Even in a structured setting such as Metropolitan, Regan had “episodes” and was illicitly using other patients’ medications. Despite all the care Regan was receiving in Metropolitan, Regan was still exhibiting symptoms and had not completed a relapse prevention plan. If released into the community, Regan would pose a great problem.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Superior Court (Williams)
233 Cal. App. 3d 477 (California Court of Appeal, 1991)
People v. Zapisek
54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 873 (California Court of Appeal, 2007)
People v. Bowers
52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 74 (California Court of Appeal, 2006)
People v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
60 Cal. App. 4th 202 (California Court of Appeal, 1997)
People v. Howard N.
106 P.3d 305 (California Supreme Court, 2005)
People v. Williams
242 Cal. App. 4th 861 (California Court of Appeal, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
People v. Regan CA5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-regan-ca5-calctapp-2016.