The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie , Acting P. 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
In 1986, defendant Donald Franklin Perkins was committed to the California Department of Mental Health after he was found not guilty by reason of insanity of first degree burglary, assault with a firearm, receiving stolen property, and battery upon a peace officer. Defendant has been in continuous mental health treatment since that time.
In February 2012, the Butte County District Attorney filed a petition for an order extending the commitment. After a trial to the court in April 2012, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant continues, by reason of a mental disease, defect, or disorder, to represent a substantial danger of physical harm to others and has serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior. After taking judicial notice of its files and pleadings, the trial court granted the petition and ordered defendant's commitment extended for two years.
Defendant timely appealed to this court. We treated defendant's motion for judicial notice as a motion to incorporate the record from his most recent prior recommitment (People v. Perkins (Mar. 26, 2012, C066057 [nonpub. opn.]), and as such granted the motion.
Defendant's current mental health diagnosis is axis I, "Schizophrenia, Undifferentiated Type," and "Polysubstance Dependence in Sustained Full Remission in a Controlled Environment;" axis II, "Antisocial Personality Disorder;" and axis IV, "Problems related to Interaction with the Legal System."
Napa State Hospital clinical psychologist Sandy Folker testified that, in her daily interactions with defendant, she has "seen symptoms of delusions" such as beliefs that he was not born in the United States; he is from another country; hospital staff was hired specifically to torture him; and people are being paid to say negative things about him. Folker also has seen paranoid delusions involving defendant's beliefs that his medication is poisoned or that people are out to get him. Folker and other staff have observed defendant "responding to himself and talking to himself," which usually signifies a perceptional disturbance or "possibly hearing things that other people don't hear."
Dr. Folker testified that defendant "doesn't respond effectively to situations and emotions as other people would normally." He is irritable, impulsive, aggressive, and often argumentative. When told he is schizophrenic, defendant "does not believe he has a mental illness and he often becomes argumentative and verbally aggressive, cursing and yelling."
Dr. Folker was unable to do a formal violence risk assessment because defendant would not cooperate. She testified an assessment would consider three groups of factors, the first being historical risk factors. Defendant has eight out of ten historical risk factors, which do not change over time. As to clinical factors, which are subject to treatment, defendant "has a lack of insight, a negative attitude toward treatment. Active symptoms of his mental illness [are] still present. He's impulsive and currently non-compliant with his treatment." "Clinically he has all the risk factors of being a risk of harm to others," she concluded.
Dr. Folker explained that "[i]n discussions with [defendant] about his insight, he does not believe that he has [a mental illness]. He usually swears. He believes that he is being held against his will, he's being falsely accused, that he is being poisoned with his medication. [¶] He still does not believe that the incident offense occurred or he played a role in it or that's significant. So . . . when we talk about lack of in sight [sic], he isn't able to connect cause and effect and relationship of ...