Pace

Thomas Pace appeals from a jury determination that he is a mentally disordered offender (MDO; see Pen. Code, § 2960 et seq.). The effect of this order is that he will be an “inpatient” unless the State Department of Mental Health certifies to the Board of Prison Terms that there is reasonable cause to believe appellant can be safely and effectively treated as an outpatient. (Pen. Code, § 2964, subd. (a).) He appeals contending: “I. There was insufficient evidence to support the verdict that the petitioner met the MDO criteria. []]] II. It was error for the court to allow the jury to hear evidence of the rape, as it was not the ‘controlling offense.’ ” These contentions are without merit and we affirm the judgment.

We recently held that the substantial evidence rule, restated in People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206 [26 CaI.Rptr.2d 23, 864 P.2d 103 ] applies to appellate review of MDO proceedings. (People v. Miller (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 913, 919-920 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 4423 ].) When the record is viewed in this light, it is apparent that substantial evidence supports the MDO determination.

Appellant has a long criminal record and a long history of mental illness. He…