People v. K.C. CA4/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 19, 2015E060441California2,823 words

Opinion

Opinion

INTRODUCTION

Defendant K.C. is a mentally disordered offender (MDO), who was committed to

Patton State Hospital with two MDO-qualifying convictions for felony assault and a

diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the

trial court’s MDO commitment order was not supported by substantial evidence because

the mental health testimony in this case was insufficient proof that she was treated for at

least 90 days in the year before her parole date.

Defendant forfeited her claim by not raising it below. (People v. Baker (2012) 204

Cal.App.4th 1234, 1245, 1247-1247 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two].) Additionally, defendant’s

argument lacks merit. After resolving all conflicts in favor of the judgment, substantial

evidence supports the jury’s finding that defendant was treated for at least 90 days—and

probably most of the year—before being paroled. We affirm.

II

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The MDO Offenses

Defendant was born in December 1985. In 2006, defendant entered the house of

her neighbor and friend, G.F., and burst into her bedroom wielding a serrated steak knife.

Defendant raised the knife over her shoulder and screamed…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.