People v. Todd CA5
F088741
Cal. Ct. App.Jan 8, 2026Check TreatmentFiled 1/8/26 P. v. Todd CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
F088741
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. MI003718-00)
v.
JOSEPH TODD, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Stephanie
Renee Childers Stewart, Judge.
Linda J. Zachritz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
-ooOoo-
* Before Hill, P. J., Franson, J. and Meehan, J.
Appointed counsel for appellant, Joseph Todd, asked this court to review the
record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (See People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the relevant
facts of this case.
Appellant was advised of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days.
More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from appellant. Finding
no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to appellant, we affirm
the judgment.
The following is a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case.
(See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
In June 2024, the People filed a petition for commitment of a person with a
developmental disability under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6500. The petition
alleged appellant is a developmentally disabled person who was dangerous to themselves
or others, that the disability was a substantial factor in causing them to have serious
difficulties in controlling their dangerous behavior, and that there were no suitable
alternatives to judicial commitment. The declaration to the petition noted appellant was
previously committed and had resided in his current facility since at least 2008.
At the People’s request, August 20, 2024, to August 22, 2024, the trial court held a
jury trial on the petition. Appellant and Dr. Michael Musacco were called by the People
to provide substantive testimony. In motions in limine rulings, the trial court allowed
entry of appellant’s mental health records and certain unsealed portions of his criminal
record. Appellant was represented by counsel during these proceedings.
Appellant testified he had lived at the Porterville Developmental Center until
2008, when he moved into his current facility, and described his daily routine and
medicines. Appellant admitted to having an intellectual disability, described its effect on
2.
him, and acknowledged he had been accused of pedophilia when he was younger.1
Appellant further acknowledged he has engaged in self-harm, made suicidal statements,
and struck both metal objects and people when frustrated. Appellant denied having any
interest in young children but admitted he was told by staff to stop looking at them, an act
he engaged in because he had “plans I want to do when I get off—get off and get out of
this group home and start my life over again.”
Dr. Musacco testified regarding his evaluation of appellant. Dr. Musacco noted he
had previously evaluated appellant approximately 17 times and had reviewed appellant’s
records and spoken with appellant as part of his evaluation. Dr. Musacco opined that
appellant has an intellectual disability that is a chronic and life-long disorder. He also
opined appellant had a depressive mood disorder and a pedophilic disorder. Dr. Musacco
then discussed issues appellant has had with completing tasks, certain incidents relating
to his depression and self-harm, and certain events and admissions relating to his
pedophiliac condition. Dr. Musacco noted that within the year before his testimony,
appellant had nine incidents of self-injurious behaviors, 43 incidents of disruptive social
behavior, and denied any incidents of sexual attraction to children. Based on his analysis,
Dr. Musacco opined appellant remained a risk to harm himself and others because of his
developmental disability.
The jury returned a true finding on the petition’s allegation that appellant is a
person with a developmental disability. Following the true finding, the trial court entered
an order for extended commitment. The trial court found beyond a reasonable doubt that
appellant is a developmentally disabled person who was a danger to themselves or others
and that their disability was a substantial factor in causing them to have serious difficulty
in controlling their dangerous behavior. Based on this, the trial court found that the least
restrictive alternative placement for appellant was in a specialized residential facility and
1 This interaction resulted in a motion for a mistrial that was denied by the trial court.
3.
ordered that appellant remain at the facility he was currently residing in. The order
expired by its own terms on August 22, 2025.
This appeal timely followed.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of
ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to appellant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
4.