People v. Curtis

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CORD WILLIAM CURTIS, Defendant and Appellant.

F084636

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

May 3, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. No SC067901A, Therese M. Foley, Judge.

Elizabeth Campbell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Henry J. Valle, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

MEEHAN, J.

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Cord William Curtis was charged with kidnapping, kidnapping a person under 14 years of age, multiple counts of forcible lewd and lascivious acts on a person under 14 years of age, and sale of marijuana to a minor in 1996. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for mental health treatment. In 2019, appellant sought a conditional release by filing a petition for restoration of sanity, which was denied.

Appellant argues he met the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his release under supervision would not pose a danger to the health and safety of others. Appellant argues this court should review the denial of his petition for substantial evidence, or, alternatively, the court abused its discretion when denying the petition. Appellant further argues the superior court's comments regarding appellant's failure to testify deprived appellant of his statutory privilege against self-incrimination and equal protection under the law. We affirm.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In an information filed on September 27, 1996, the Kern County District Attorney charged appellant with kidnapping (Pen. Code, § 207, subd. (a);^[1] count 1), kidnapping of a person under 14 years of age (§ 208, subd. (b); count 2); forcible lewd or lascivious acts on a person under 14 years of age (§ 288, subd. (b); counts 3-10), and unlawful sale of marijuana to a minor (Health &Saf. Code, § 11361, subd. (a); count 11). The information further alleged appellant used a deadly or dangerous weapon in commission of counts 1 and 2, as well as numerous other enhancements.

On April 7, 2000, appellant was deemed not guilty by reason of insanity on all counts, and committed to the custody of the DSH for treatment. Appellant's term of commitment was life, with a minimum of 180 days. Appellant has resided at DSH- Coalinga since 2016.

On December 10, 2019, pursuant to section 1026.2, subdivision (a), appellant filed a petition for restoration of sanity. The petition was denied on July 12, 2022. This appeal follows.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Commitment Offense

The facts of the commitment offense are taken from the partially redacted assessment report submitted to the court on March 13, 2022, pursuant to section 1026.2, subdivision (b).

"[Appellant] encountered an 11-year-old boy while driving and forced him into the vehicle at knifepoint. He drove the victim to a condominium in the Palm Springs area. Once there, [appellant] handcuffed the boy to a bed and committed acts of sodomy and oral copulation. He threatened to kill the boy while holding the knife to his neck. The following day, [appellant] drove the victim to a bus station in Los Angeles and released him...."

Assessment Report

Dr Stephen G. Davis prepared the assessment report submitted to the court. The report was admitted as an exhibit at the outpatient placement hearing.

The report summarized appellant's history. Appellant has been diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder (DID) posttraumatic stress disorder and "[o]ther [s]pecified [p]ersonality [d]isorder." Appellant was found not guilty by reason of insanity as a result of the role his DID played in the commitment behavior. Appellant had been dissociating since the 1960's and his most recent period of dissociation or amnesia was in 2014-2015.

Appellant entered the DSH-Coalinga sex offender treatment program (SOTP) upon his arrival at the hospital and sought transfer to the hospital for the program. At the time of the report, although appellant continued to participate in groups and completed an interpersonal relationship skills group in November 2021, appellant declined any sex offender treatment-related assessments. Because he continued to decline such assessments, including the phallometric assessments and polygraph examination, he was unlikely to advance in treatment. Appellant stated the reason he declined the assessments was because he has a heart condition that would produce an erroneous result, and appellant believes his history of sexual abuse preconditions him to have a positive phallometric assessment. However, appellant's social worker described appellant as "a relatively healthy 60-year-old male" who did not present with any significant health issues. When pressed about participating in these assessments, appellant agreed that participating could be to his benefit, but otherwise remained ambivalent.

The report noted several concerning incidents appellant was involved in. In February 2020, appellant was observed throwing cards at a peer's hand and saying "'You're a f****ing piece of trash.. .you're a loser.'" Appellant stated that his peer had tried to minimize a mistake made in a card game, which triggered appellant. In June 2021, appellant's treatment team expressed concerns appellant was bartering and extorting other patients. In July 2021, appellant was found in possession of other patients' IRS documents, which he was filling out for a fee so the patients could receive their IRS stimulus checks, from which appellant took a fee. In March 2022, appellant's treatment team and staff noted appellant exhibited concerning "grooming behavior" toward another new, younger-looking patient in the unit. At one point, appellant was observed in the patient's room, and the patient's pants were off. When approached about this behavior or asked to monitor the time appellant spent with the patient, appellant became defensive and did not abide by the recommendation.

When asked about this patient, appellant stated that the patient had schizophrenia and appellant had a "calming effect on him" and was helping him. Appellant stated he helped the patient take his medication and clip his toenails. Appellant denied that staff members instructed him to limit his interactions or stop associating with the patient, and that appellant was only instructed to keep his privacy curtain open when the patient was in the room with him.

Regarding his physical health, appellant described having concerns for his heart function and stated he developed an irregular heartbeat due to COVID-19. He stated he was having trouble sleeping due to noise in the unit, and had recently had his nose broken by another patient.

Regarding appellant's DID, appellant denied experiencing any recent dissociation. Appellant journaled and called his mother to help keep account of his life in a systemic way and check whether lapses occurred, but commented that his clinicians did not fully understand his disorder and he felt he was put on the "'back burner.'" Appellant had not gained any more insight into his various alters, and said Phillip, the alter who was in control when he sexually assaulted the victim, acted out in a very aggressive way and had limited coping strategies. Appellant said that traits of his alters are always present in some way, and he understood that he engaged in sexually deviant and antisocial behaviors through his various alters. Appellant did say he did not feel he was on the cusp of fragmentation at all times.

But, appellant then stated that three nights prior to his interview with Dr. Davis, he was on the cusp of fragmentation, and was able to stay grounded and avoid dissociation despite not receiving DID treatment.

Appellant was rated an average risk to reoffend pursuant to the Static-99R^[2] score. Appellant's current risk as measured by the VRS-SO^[3] was also in the average range.

The report concluded:

" ... [Appellant] has a significant history of violent and sadistic childhood trauma at the hand of his father and a neighbor. As a result of this trauma, as a means to protect himself, he developed a complex framework of different personalities that served different purposes for him throughout this life .. This condition has caused significant clinical distress, has interfered with his relationships, occupations, and scholastic endeavors, and has led to significant legal issues.... [Appellant] relayed that over his time at DSH-P[atton], he worked with a treatment provider, Dr Walstrom, to reintegrate the various aspects of his personality into a cohesive whole. As such, after this treatment, [appellant] feels that his DID is in remission and refers to himself as a reintegrated and whole individual .. While [appellant] claims this, he continues to lack knowledge concerning the alter who committed the sexual assault in 1996. As part of the 07/12/21 interview, [appellant] was able to discuss the different aspects of his personalities but seemed to have only integrated the more socially desirable aspects of his personality structure and has avoided addressing issues related to his antisocial, borderline, and sexually deviant personalities. As such, while he has done an extensive amount of work to reintegrate the socially acceptable parts of his personality structure, I question whether he can say that he is 'fully' reintegrated at this point in his treatment. The term 'fully integrated' would seem to indicate that he has a full understanding of the more sexually deviant and antisocial aspects of his personality. As part of the 07/12...