Wrentmore

*923 Opinion

Defendant James Alan Wrentmore challenges the one-year extension of his commitment as a mentally disordered offender. He contends the court erred by allowing him to represent himself at the extension trial. But his rights to counsel and self-representation at that trial are statutory— violations are reviewed for harmless error. No reasonable probability exists that defendant would have obtained a more favorable result if he had been represented by counsel at trial. We affirm.

FACTS

Defendant was convicted in 2004 of one count each of making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422) 1 and dissuading a witness by force (§136.1, subd. (c)(1)) after accosting a bus driver. After a series of parole violations, he was found to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO) in June 2007 and committed to a state hospital until his parole term’s expiration in May 2010 (see § 2960 et seq.).

The Orange County District Attorney filed a petition in December 2009 to extend defendant’s commitment. 2 The petition attached an affidavit from the state hospital’s medical director and a September 2009 psychological evaluation. These documents showed defendant currently suffered from paranoid…