213 Cal. App. 4th 153
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Achrem, convicted of manslaughter, was released on parole and treated 90 days at a parole outpatient clinic (POC).
- After parole violations, he received 73 days of enhanced outpatient program (EOP) in prison before his April 23, 2011 parole date.
- In July 2011, BPH certified him as an MDO for treatment at ASH.
- DMH-specified outpatient treatment was argued to count toward the 90-day criterion, though Debruin did not count POC.
- Del Valle and Martin dicta had suggested outpatient treatment could not satisfy the 90-day requirement; the court disapproved that reading.
- The court held that 90 days may be satisfied by DMH-specified outpatient treatment, counting POC when properly certified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether POC treatment can satisfy the 90-day requirement | Achrem’s 90 days included POC treatment; DMH certification should count. | POC treatment not count as 90 days because not inpatient and not DMH-approved as outpatient. | Yes; DMH-specified outpatient treatment counts toward 90 days. |
| Interpretation of 2962(c) and 2964(a) together | Outpatient treatment certified by DMH can satisfy 90 days. | Literal 90 days in custody applies; outpatient cannot satisfy the criterion. | Inpatient or DMH-certified outpatient counts; statutes harmonized to allow outpatient. |
| Impact of Del Valle and Martin dicta | dicta misread; outpatient can satisfy 90 days. | Del Valle and Martin dicta support inpatient-only reading. | Disapproved; outpatient counting is permissible under the MDO Act when DMH certifies. |
| Adequacy of the evidence supporting MDO criteria | CDCR and DMH evaluations show 90 days met; BPH certification proper. | DMH evaluators did not count POC; Debruin’s testimony supported that. | Record supports meeting all six criteria, including 90 days. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Del Valle, 100 Cal.App.4th 88 (Cal. App. 2002) (outpatient treatment questioned for 90-day criterion)
- People v. Martin, 127 Cal.App.4th 970 (Cal. App. 2005) (in-custody pre-conviction treatment discussed as inpatient)
- People v. Salter, 192 Cal.App.4th 1352 (Cal. App. 2011) (outpatient treatment specified by DMH counts as inpatient/outpatient under MDO act)
- People v. Bowers, 145 Cal.App.4th 870 (Cal. App. 2006) (single psychiatric opinion as substantial evidence)
- Lopez v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.4th 1055 (Cal. 2010) (MDO certification and hearing procedures)