APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Robert J. Lemkau, Judge. Affirmed. (Super.Ct.No. FSB031782)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ramirez P. J.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant and appellant Jerry Wayne Blaylock appeals from an order revoking his outpatient status; he contends the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that he was a danger to anyone. We affirm.
On August 31, 2001, defendant entered a restaurant and argued with a patron; defendant made stabbing motions while wielding a pocket knife and chased the victim out of the restaurant. He was found guilty, but not guilty by reason of insanity, of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1))*fn1 and committed to the California Department of Mental Health in 2002. He was diagnosed with antisocial disorder and polysubstance abuse. He had been intoxicated at the time he conducted the assault. Following his commitment, defendant was placed in a state hospital pursuant to section 1026. In 2005, he was accepted into the conditional release program (outpatient status pursuant to § 1600 et seq.). By 2007, when a new clinical therapist assumed defendant into her caseload, defendant was employed and had worked his way through the conditional release program to reach the transitional level of service. This meant he had reduced supervision and only one individual therapeutic session a month.
In November 2007, defendant violated the terms and conditions of his outpatient treatment. He had been prescribed pain medication, but was not following protocol in getting his prescriptions filled. Defendant would be in pain from lesions on his tongue and would go the emergency room where he would be prescribed more medication. His visits were not kept secret from the conditional release program and he was taken to the hospital in an ambulance for one of the visits. The therapist thought that defendant had been "shopping around" four or five doctors in this manner. Defendant always went to the same facility; the facility had defendant's medical records and the doctors would likely know the medications he had been prescribed. In theory, the doctors should have taken away medications that were being replaced with another medication. However, "sometimes he would take some of the medication himself and put it in a different bottle so he could keep it with him," rather than turn it over to his board and care provider. Thus, the doctors could not necessarily have taken away prior medications. The therapist considered this a violation because the program's psychiatrist needed to be aware of defendant's medications, "particularly when a client of ours has a polysubstance dependence. More often than not, if there is a polysubstance dependence, substance abuse is what contributed directly to their instant offense, thus rendering them dangerous in the community."
Around this period of time defendant "was involved in a romantic relationship with a woman who was a bad character, using drugs, and [who] stole [his truck] from him. And because of that he got [an] insurance settlement." Defendant disclosed that shortly after meeting the woman, he had observed needle tracks on her arm and knew she was associating with criminals. Defendant knew the woman was still "using." Defendant incurred credit card debt without the therapist's knowledge to buy things for the woman and her children. "After [the woman's] son stabbed him in the hand, he stopped having contact with her."
Rather than seeking revocation of defendant's conditional release, the program increased the level of his supervision sometime before July 2008. This required defendant to attend a full day program and increase his individual sessions to three a month. Defendant frequently told the therapist that he resented the increased level of supervision; in particular, he was no longer able to work and he thought the program was forcing him into bankruptcy. However, defendant did not do the "very specific things that he needed to do in order to receive his previous level of freedom." On July 31, 2008, the therapist requested that the trial court revoke defendant's outpatient status. She withdrew her request after defendant's participation and attitude improved.
On October 17, 2008, the conditional release program returned defendant to the state hospital "pursuant to [sections] 1608/1610" and sought revocation of defendant's outpatient status. The bases for the request were that defendant's attitude changed, "he was again articulating a resentment," and he told the therapist "that he had received an insurance settlement" for his stolen truck and "with that insurance check he went out and purchased a new vehicle."
Defendant had permission to own the truck that had been stolen from him. However, defendant owed the program money for his board and care and was required to inform them of any financial transactions over $500. Defendant described many details of the truck purchase to the therapist: the kind of truck, the insurance arrangements, his intent to pay for the lease with his unemployment checks, the truck was on sale so had to make the ...