P. v. Hubbard 5/24/10 CA2/7

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2010 » P. v. Hubbard 5/24/10 CA2/7

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B217739

Case Date: 09/16/2010

Preview:Filed 5/24/10 P. v. Hubbard CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES EARL HUBBARD, Defendant and Appellant.

B217739 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. ZM013438)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Maria E. Stratton, Judge. Affirmed. Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Keith H. Borjon and A. Scott Hayward, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________

INTRODUCTION

Defendant James Earl Hubbard appeals from an order denying his motion to dismiss the offense on which his recommitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) was based. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant was committed as an MDO under Penal Code section 29621 following his conviction of attempted grand theft person in violation of sections 487, subdivision (c), and 664.2 The commitment was set to expire on November 11, 2008. On July 3, 2008, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a petition for involuntary commitment under section 2970 (recommitment petition). Defendant denied the allegations of the petition and waived his right to a jury trial on the matter. At the February 13, 2009 hearing on the recommitment petition, forensic psychiatrist Mark Jaffe, M.D., testified that he examined defendant at Patton State Hospital on November 4, 2008. Defendant "presented in a somewhat manic state. He was very active during the interview. He sang some songs for me at one point. He was grandiose and spoke about being a producer and performer. And he became very agitated
1 2

All further section references are to the Penal Code.

According to the preliminary hearing transcript, defendant confronted the victim at a gas station. He demanded money. She gave him two quarters, but he demanded more. He grabbed the gas pump nozzle, inserted it into her cars gas tank and began to lick the cars gas cap. He then grabbed the victims wrist. She tried to pull away, but he was holding her too tightly. He pulled at her and kissed her on her forehead. When he finished pumping gas into the car, he let the victim go. As she got back into her car, he began hitting it. She started to drive away, but he grabbed her hand and pulled on it. She managed to get away, but he followed her. When she stopped at a red light, he came to her window, grabbed her hand again, pulled on it and demanded more money.

2

and paranoid during the course of the interview. And accused me of being against him. And he terminated the interview after approximately about a half hour." He said Dr. Jaffe "was a bad doctor. And that he was going to tell the court on [the doctor]." Defendant walked out, "mutter[ing] something under his breath that sounded like honky." Dr. Jaffe reviewed defendants hospital records. Based on these records and the interview, Dr. Jaffe diagnosed defendant with schizoaffective disorder, a severe mental illness. It was evidenced by paranoid delusions: Defendant believed he never committed the offense of which he was convicted but had been "set up," his father was Elvis Presley, and he was a prophet of God. Defendants hospital records showed that he had engaged in threatening, hostile behavior toward hospital staff. He made punching motions when he did not want to take his medication. He claimed to be a dangerous man and said he wanted to attack people as he had done before. He said that he was "going to blow up" and "sock somebody." Dr. Jaffe believed defendant was not in remission. Defendant represented a danger of substantial physical harm to others due to his mental illness, difficulty controlling his violent and aggressive behavior, and his lack of insight into his condition. Additionally, defendants history of substance abuse increased the risk of violent behavior. Defendant testified on his own behalf. Defendant acknowledged that he was schizophrenic and paranoid. He said that he was willing to take his medication and had never refused to do so. While testifying, defendant gave rambling and sometimes nonsensical answers to questions. For example, when asked if he had a relapse prevention plan in place, he responded: "Im taking relapse, I finishing it maam, maam, maam. I dont have no problem completing my plan. Something to do. Now doing real good. Im ready. They want to go home. Thats--they sent me over here. They sent me over--on a horse, riding a horse. I was half--come on here, you do not got to do--that is wrong kind of horse."

3

When asked if he thought he was dangerous, he said: "No. Im dangerous? Not nothing wrong with me--a misunderstanding. And then you are my mouth. Just like daddy, daddy--that is my mouth." He said all he did was "smile and laugh, joke around and sing. I dont bother nobody. . . . Can you try to steal that song, stop stealing from me."

DISCUSSION The MDO Law (

Download P. v. Hubbard 5/24/10 CA2/7.pdf