The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte , J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Donald Franklin Perkins timely appeals from an order extending his mental health commitment, after he was previously found not guilty by reason of insanity of felony charges. Defendant contends no substantial evidence supports the finding that he has a serious difficulty in controlling his dangerous behavior. We disagree and shall affirm.
In 1986, defendant was found not guilty by reason of insanity of first degree burglary, assault with a firearm, receiving stolen property, and battery against a peace officer, and was committed to a state hospital.
By statute, an insane person may be committed beyond the maximum period of criminal confinement for the underlying felony offenses "only if the person . . . by reason of a mental disease, defect, or disorder represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others." (Pen. Code, § 1026.5, subd. (b)(1).) A recommitment order lasts two years, whereupon the People may seek another recommitment order. (Id., § 1026.5, subd. (b)(8).)
In addition to the statutory requirement that the People show the defendant represents a substantial danger to others, this court has concluded that due process requires that the People also show the defendant "has serious difficulty in controlling dangerous behavior." (People v. Galindo (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 531, 537 (Galindo); see People v. Sudar (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 655, 662-663 (Sudar); People v. Bowers (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 870, 878 (Bowers).) It is solely to this required finding that defendant's attacks on appeal are directed.
In March 2010, the district attorney filed a petition to extend defendant's most recent commitment, and the matter was submitted for a court trial.
The trial court took judicial notice of the court file in defendant's underlying criminal case, and the parties stipulated defendant had "continuously been in treatment" within the state hospital system since 1986.
Dr. Shakeel Khan, a staff psychiatrist at Napa State Hospital, testified about his expert qualifications and familiarity with defendant's case, both from reviewing defendant's psychiatric records and from personally treating defendant. Defendant is a longstanding schizophrenic with an antisocial personality disorder who suffers from delusions, and had been abusing illegal drugs at the time of the underlying offenses, which resulted from his belief terrorists were attacking his trailer, causing him to shoot at his family members and the police.
Defendant believes he is wealthy and does not believe he committed the offenses, or that he has a mental illness. He has not assaulted anyone or been aggressive for the past two or three years, and is on a ward for patients who have been compliant with staff. Although defendant takes two antipsychotic drugs to keep him stable, they do not control his delusions: He still believes he is wealthy, has no mental illness or substance abuse problem, and was framed by the police, and he still hears voices. A third drug ...