Parham
People v. Parham
Opinion
Opinion
Gilbert, J.
The trial court finds that defendant was not a mentally disordered offender (MDO) at the time he committed a criminal offense. The judgment states that defendant was not an MDO at the time of his prior hearing before the Board of Prison Terms (BPT). Here we hold res judicata bars the prosecution from retrying defendant as an MDO based on the same qualifying offense.
Steven Parham appeals the judgment committing him to the California Department of Mental Health (DMH) as an MDO. (Pen. Code, § 2962.) We reverse.
FACTS
In 1997 Parham threatened to kill his brother and mother. He was convicted of making terrorist threats (Pen. Code, § 422) and sentenced to two years in state prison. On December 21, 1998, the BPT determined that Parham was an MDO. Parham filed a petition to review that determination in the superior court.
The First Case
Doctor Robert Halón, a psychologist, testified that Parham had a long record of crimes going back to 1973 caused by a personality disorder, not a severe mental disorder.
Judge Donald G. Umhofer found that Doctor Halón’s testimony was the only “comprehensive explanation” for Parham’s criminal history. He rejected 1992, 1993 and 1995 medical…