Docstoc

Sorenson case: DA motion to dismiss

Document Sample
Sorenson case: DA motion to dismiss Powered By Docstoc
					DEAN D. FLIPPO
District Attorney
Monterey County
GLENN PESENHOFER
Deputy District Attorney
State Bar No. 171307
  230 Church Street
  Building 3
  Salinas, CA 93901
  Telephone: (831) 755-5254
  Fax: (831) 755-5068
  Email: pesenhoferg@co.monterey.ca.us
Attorneys Real Party in Interest


       IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


CHRISTOPHER SORENSON,

                           Petitioner,
                    V.                              H038295
                                                    Monterey County No.
MONTEREY COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,                     SS112361,MH4621,
                                                    WITI4654, MH4924
                           Respondent,              MH4928, MH4934
                                                    MH5082, MH5119
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,                  MH5129
MONTEREY COUNTY COUNSEL, THE
MONTEREY COUNTY HERALD, THE
SALINAS CALIFORNIAN

                    Real Parties in Interest


  MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
               AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
       Real party in interest the People of the State of California moves for an

order dismissing Petitioner Christopher Sorenson's petition for a writ of mandate

and/or prohibition in the above-entitled matter on the ground that the petition is

now moot. The People of the State of California and Petitioner have settled or

compromised the issue in the petition thus making the petition moot. Furthermore,

Petitioner has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity in the criminal

case. To the extent a psychotherapist-patient privilege existed in the LPS

transcripts the privilege no applies in this case because Petitioner has placed his

mental state at issue in the criminal case. (See Evidence Code § 1016.)

Additionally, any claim that the LPS transcripts are covered by the

psychotherapist-patient privilege is now waived by Petitioner agreeing to the

release of the transcripts to the People. (See Evidence Code § 912.) The motion is

based on the record in the present proceeding, the attached memorandum of points

and authorities, and on the declarations of Glenn Pesenhofer and Steven Somers

with attached exhibits.

                                INTRODUCTION

    On December 20, 2011, the People filed a complaint in case SS112361A

alleging Petitioner committed one count of murder in violation of Penal Code

section 187, subd. (a) (See Exhibit 1 to preliminary opposition.)




                                              2
          On December 28, 2011, Real Party in Interest, the Salinas Californian,

 requested access to court files MH4654 and MH5129 involving Petitioner. (See

 Petn. at pp. 24-26.)

          Prior to January 18, 2012, the People filed a request with the court for

 transcripts of the jury trial in cases MH4654 and MH5129. (See Petn. at p. 29.)

      On January 18, 2012, the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, County of

Monterey, denied the requests from the People and the Salinas Californian. (See

Petn. at pp. 27-30.)

     On February 1, 2012, the People filed a request for reconsideration of the

order denying the request for transcripts of jury trial for cases MI-15129 and

MH4654. (Petn. at pp. 31-41.)

     On February 8, 2012, Real Party in Interest, the Monterey County Herald,

filed a petition to examine seal records in cases MH4621, MI-14654, M114924,

MH4934, MH5082, MH5119, and ME5129. (Petn. at pp. 42-47.)

     On March 19, 2012, the magistrate issued an order setting the requests by the

People, the Salinas Californian, and the Monterey County Herald, for a public

hearing on March 27, 2012, and requesting briefing on certain issues. (Petn. at pp.

48-49.)

    On March 27, 2012, the magistrate granted Petitioner's motion to continue the

hearing on the release of the records until April 19, 2012. (See Exhibit 9 to

preliminary opposition.)


                                                3
     On April 19, 2012, the petition for release of records was continued until

April 27, 2012. (See Exhibit 11 to preliminary opposition.)

     On April 27, 2012, oral argument was heard on the petition and the magistrate

took the matter under submission and indicated he would issue a written decision.

(Petn. at p. 118.)

     On May 2, 2012, the magistrate issued his written decision allowing release

of the jury trial transcripts but denying relief as to the request to access the files.

(Petn. at pp. 119-123.) The order was stayed until May 17, 2012.

     On Petitioner filed his petition in this Court on May 16, 2012. (Petn. at pp.

119-123.)

     On May 16, 2012, this Court stayed the trial court's May 2, 2012 order

releasing the transcripts.

     On May 31, 2012, real party in interest the State of California filed its

preliminary opposition.

     On June 12, 2012, Petitioner filed his reply.

    On October 25, 2012, a preliminary hearing was held and the trial court held

Petitioner to answer to the one charge in the complaint. (See Exhibit 13 attached

to the People's November 15, 2012 letter to Court.)

     On November 13, 2012, Petitioner was arraigned on the information. At that

time Petitioner entered a plea of not guilty. (See Exhibit 14 attached to the

People's November 15, 2012 letter to Court.)


                                                4
     On December 4, 2012, this Court issued an order to show cause why a

peremptory writ should not issue as requested in the petition for a writ of mandate

and/or prohibition.

     On January 11, 2013, the People filed a return and request for judicial notice.

     On January 15, 2013, the trial court suspended criminal proceedings pursuant

to Penal Code section 1368. (See Exhibit 15 attached to the People's February 26,

2013 letter to the Court.)

     On February 5, 2013, criminal proceedings were reinstated. (See Exhibit 16

attached to the People's February 26, 2013 letter to the Court.)

     On February 19, 2013, Petitioner entered a plea of not guilty by reason of

insanity. (See Exhibit 17 attached to the People's February 26, 2013 letter to

Court, a copy of which is attached to the declaration of Glenn Pesenhofer.)

     On February 19, 2013, Petitioner filed his reply to the return.

    On March 19, 2013, the trial court, pursuant to Penal Code § 1027, subd. (a),

appointed Dr. Elizabeth Lee to examine Petitioner. (See Exhibit 18 attached to the

declaration of Glenn Pesenhofer.)

    On March 26, 2013, Petitioner and his counsel in the criminal case agreed that

the transcripts of the two LPS trials which are the subject of the writ proceeding

should be turned over to the People, Petitioner, and to all the examiners appointed

pursuant to Penal Code section 1027, subd. (a). (See Exhibits 19 and 20 attached

to the declaration of Glenn Pesenhofer.) Petitioner and his counsel in the criminal


                                              5
 case both indicated their agreement with the release of the transcripts to the People

 by signing a document entitled Defendant's Conditional Waiver of Privacy Rights

 in Conservatorships Trials. (See Exhibit 21 attached to the declaration of Steven

 Somers.)

     On March 28, 2013, the Court, pursuant to Penal Code section 1027, subd.

 (a), appointed Dr. Gregory Katz to examine Petitioner. (See Exhibit 22 attached to

the declaration of Glenn Pesenhofer.)

                                    ARGUMENT

    THE PETITION SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS MOOT BECAUSE
PETITIONER AND THE PEOPLE HAVE SETTLED OR COMPROMISED
                  THE UNDERLYING CLAIM

       "Generally, courts decide only "actual controversies" which result in a

judgment that offers relief to the parties." (Ebensteiner Company, Inc. v.

Chadmar Group (2006) 143 Cal.App.4 th 1174, 1178.) Thus, appellate courts as a

rule will not render opinions on moot questions: "[W]hen, pending an appeal from

the judgment of a lower court, and without fault of the [respondent], an event

occurs which renders it impossible for [the reviewing court] if it should decide the

case in favor of [appellant], to grant [appellant] any effectual relief whatever, the

court will proceed to a formal judgment, but will dismiss the appeal. (lbid at pp.

1178-1179, citations omitted.) The policy behind this rule is that courts decide

justiciable controversies and will not normally render advisory opinions. (Ibid at




                                               6
 p. 1179, citations omitted.) General principles of mootness apply to writ

petitions. (Gridley v. Gridley (2008) 166 Cal. App. 4 th 1562, 1588.)

        One such event for which a reviewing court will dismiss an appeal is when

the underlying claim is settled or compromised. (Ebensteiner, supra, 143

Cal.App.4th at p. 1179.) Dismissal of an appeal is an appropriate disposition for a

suit that is compromised or settled because the law favors and encourages

compromises and settlements of controversies made in or out of court.      (Ibid,

citing Armstrong v. Sacramento Valley R. Co. (1919) 179 Cal. 648, 650-651.) A

settlement operates as a merger and ban as to all preexisting claims and those

alleged in the lawsuit that have been resolved. Consequently, an agreement where

a preexisting legal controversy involving rights and obligations is definitely settled

pending appeal from a judgment is an agreement of compromise extinguishing the

judgment. In short, a valid settlement agreement between the parties effectively

extinguishes the judgment from which the appeal is taken, thus, ending the prior

dispute between the parties. (Ebensteiner, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1179-1180,

citing Armstrong, supra, 179 Cal. at p. 651.)

       This petition should be dismissed as moot because the People and

Petitioner have compromised or settled the underlying claim involving the release

to the People of the transcripts from the LPS jury trials. This writ proceeding

involves Petitioner's attempt to preclude the People from obtaining copies of

transcripts from two LPS jury trials. Petitioner and his counsel in the criminal


                                                7
proceeding have both signed a document entitled Defendant's Conditional Waiver

of Privacy in Conservatorship Trials agreeing that the People should be provided

copies of the transcripts from Petitioners two I,PS jury trials. (See Exhibit 21.)

Counsel for Petitioner indicated on the record Petitioner's agreement with the

decision to release to the People transcripts from the two LPS jury trial. (See

Exhibit 20.) As the People and Petitioner have settled the legal controversy

between them, this Court should find the controversy is moot and dismiss the

petition.

 THE PETITION IS NOW MOOT BECAUSE ANY PSYCHOTHERAPIST-
   PATIENT PRIVILEGE THAT MAY HAVE APPLIED TO THE LPS
 TRANSCRIPTS NO LONGER EXISTS DUE TO PETITIONER PUTTING
   HIS MENTAL STATE AT ISSUE BY HIS RECENT PLEA OF NOT
               GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY

    Petitioner argued to the trial court that the LPS jury trial transcripts were

covered by the psychotherapist-patient privilege. (Petn at p. 94.) Assuming that

privilege ever existed and the existence of the privilege forms a basis to deny the

People copies of the transcripts, the privilege issue is now moot. Any

psychotherapist-patent privilege that may have existed in the transcripts was lost

under the patient-litigant exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege when

Petitioner put his mental and emotional state in issue. (See Evidence Code, §

1016.)

    In California, as in all other states, statements made by a patient to a

psychotherapist during therapy are generally treated as confidential and enjoy the


                                              8
 protection of a psychotherapist-patient privilege.   (People v. Gonzales (2013) 56

 Cal. 4th 353, 371.) Evidence Code section 1014—the basic provision setting forth

 California's psychotherapist-patient privilege   provides in relevant part: "Subject

to Section 912 [(waiver)] and except as otherwise provided in this article, the

patient ... has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from

disclosing, a confidential communication between patient and psychotherapist ...

." Evidence Code section 1012, in turn, defines" 'confidential communication

between patient and psychotherapist' "to mean "information, including

information obtained by an examination of the patient, transmitted between a

patient and his psychotherapist in the course of that relationship and in confidence

by a means which, so far as the patient is aware, discloses the information to no

third persons other than those who are present to further the interest of the patient

in the consultation, or those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the

transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which

the psychotherapist is consulted, and includes a diagnosis made and the advice

given by the psychotherapist in the course of that relationship." (Ibid.)

    Although the Legislature established a broad psychotherapist-patient privilege

in section 1014, it at the same time adopted numerous explicit statutory exceptions

to the privilege that limit the circumstances in which the privilege is applicable.

(Ibid at p. 372.) One such exception is found in Evidence Code § 1016 involving




                                              9
 the patient-litigation exception. (Ibid.)'             Section 1016, subdivision (a) provides:

 "There is no privilege under this article as to a communication relevant to an issue

 concerning the mental or emotional condition of the patient if such issue is

 tendered by the patient."

       In May, 2012, when the petition was filed Petitioner had entered a plea of not

 guilty. That plea remained his only plea in the case until February 19, 2013 when

Petitioner entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. (See Exhibit 19.)

Thus if Petitioner was entitled to invoke the statutory psychotherapist-patient

privilege in regards to the release of the LPS transcripts, that privilege is no

longer applicable in this proceeding because of the patient-litigation exception to

the privilege found in Evidence Code §1016. Under the patient-litigant exception,

the psychotherapist-patent privilege was lost when defendant put his mental and

emotional state in issue at trial. (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal. 4 th 641, 690.)

By putting his mental state at issue in the criminal case the psychotherapist-patient

exception would justify the release of the transcripts to the People. Petitioner

himself conceded to the trial court that a subsequent plea of not guilty by reason of

insanity would result in the People becoming entitled to the transcripts from the

LPS jury trials. (See Petn. at p. 94.) Petitioner's recent plea of not guilty by

reason of insanity renders the petition moot.


I Evidence Code § 1023 also states that it applies to sanity proceedings. However § 1023 notes that it
applies to proceedings brought under Penal Code § 1367 which typically involve a defendant's
competence, not sanity. Notwithstanding this possible ambiguity, the Law Revision Commission
Comments to § 1023 note that the section is probably unnecessary because the exception provided by
Section 1016 is broad enough to cover this situation.

                                                         10
 THE PETITION IS NOW MOOT BECAUSE ANY PSYCHOTHERAPIST-
PATIENT PRIVILEGE IN THE LPS TRANSCRIPTS HAS BEEN WAIVED
   BY PETITIONER AGREEING THE PEOPLE SHOULD RECEIVE
               COPIES OF THE LPS TRANSCRIPTS

     The express language of the psychotherapist-patient in Evidence Code § 1014

notes that the privilege is subject to the waiver provisions of Evidence Code § 912.

If Petitioner ever has held a psychotherapist-patient privilege in the LPS jury trial

transcripts, that privilege has now been waived by Petitioner because Petitioner

has consented to the disclosure to the People of the LPS transcripts.

     Evidence Code § 912 states regarding waiver: "(a) Except as otherwise

provided in this section, the right of any person to claim a privilege provided by ...

[Evidence Code section 1014] (psychotherapist-patient privilege) ... is waived

with respect to a communication protected by the privilege if any holder of the

privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication

or has consented to disclosure made by anyone. Consent to disclosure is

manifested by any statement or other conduct of the holder of the privilege

indicating consent to the disclosure, including failure to claim the privilege in any

proceeding in which the holder has the legal standing and opportunity to claim the

privilege." Pursuant to Evidence Code § 1013, the patient is the holder of the

psychotherapist-patient privilege.

    Petitioner has waived any psychotherapist-patient privilege claim he may

have in the LPS transcripts because he has agreed to the release of the transcripts

to the People. By Petitioner signing the document entitled Defendant's

                                              11
Conditional Waiver of Privacy in Conservatorship Trials Petitioner has manifested

his consent to the disclosure of the LPS transcripts to the People. For this reason

the petition is now moot.

                                   CONCLUSION

       Petitioner has been charged with one count of the murder of his mother.

Over one year after the prosecution commenced Petitioner has now entered a plea

of not guilty by reason of insanity. Although initially he sought to deny the People

access to the transcripts of his two LPS jury trials, Petitioner now agrees the

People should receive copies of those transcripts. For the foregoing reasons, real

party in interest the People of the State of California requests this Court dismiss

Petitioner's pending petition for a writ of mandate and/or prohibition.

       Dated: April 11, 2013        Respectfully submitted,


                                    DEAN D. FLIPPO,
                                    DISTRICT ATTORNEY

                                    By:



                                    Glenn Pesenhofer
                                    Deputy District Attorney
                                    Attorneys for the People
                                    Real Party in Interest




                                              12
                   DECLARATION OF GLENN PESENHOFER

       I, Glenn Pesenhofer, declare as follows:

       1. I am a Deputy District Attorney with the Monterey County District

Attorney's Office and am currently assigned to the writs and appeal unit. My

State Bar number is 171307.

      2. I am the attorney assigned to handle the briefing in this proceeding at the

Court of Appeal.

      3. Attached is a copy of Exhibit 17 which was previously filed with the

Court. Exhibit 17 is a certified copy of the February 19, 2013 minutes in case

SS112361A.

      4. Attached as Exhibit "18" is a certified copy of the of the March 19, 2013

minute order in case SS112361A.

      5. Attached as Exhibit "19" is a certified copy of the March 26, 2013

minute order in case SS112361A.

      6. Attached as Exhibit "20" is a true and correct copy of the transcript from

the March 26, 2013 hearing in case SS112361A.

      7. Attached as Exhibit "22" is a certified copy of the March 28, 2013

minute order in case SS112361A.




                                            13
        I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California

that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Salinas, California on April 11,

2013.



                                           Glenn Pesenhofer
                                           Deputy District Attorney




                                             14
EXHIBIT 17
                           SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY


The People of the State of California,
                                                             Plaintiff            Hon. Mark E. Hood
                                                                                  Clerk:   Lita Messina
vs.                                                                               CSR:     Anne Hall - CSR#4942
                                                                                  Recording No.
Sorenson, Christopher,
                                                             Defendant



Minutes: Pre-Trial & Setting of Jury Trial                                        Case No.        SS112361A
                                                                                                  Courtroom 4

            February 19, 2013
Charges:
1:     PC187(a) [Murder]    FEL




Nature of proceedings: PT & JT setting.
Deputy District Attorney Steve Somers appeared.
Defendant appears and is in custody on this case.
Defendant appeared with Counsel Steven Liner.
Discussions are had by Court and respective counsel.
Defendant having previously entered a plea of not guilty to all counts.
Defendant personally entered a plea not guilty by reason of insanity to all counts.
Court advises Defendant that a successful defense might result in commitment to a state mental hospital.
Court advises Defendant that the commitment to a state mental hospital might extend beyond the maximum
commitment for the underlying crime.
Court advises Defendant that possible periodic extensions of a commitment might result in a lifetime confinement.
Defendant personally acknowledged the court's advisements.
Counsel indicates that counsel will meet and confer re: appointment of doctors pursuant to Penal Code section
1027(a) and have a response to the Court by the next hearing date.
Case continued to Tuesday, March 05, 2013 at 0830 in Salinas courtroom 04 for appointment of doctors.
Defendant to remain In-Custody
                                                 0\\\'ORI
No bail allowed.                                                    '''''                    I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT IS A
                                               4.4
II                                                                            •              TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGIN L ON FILE IN MY OFFICE.
                                                 •                                ."*.
                                                                                             DATE
                                                                                             CONNIE,                           R COURT
                                        -;--         •
                                                         •
                                                                                             BY                                          MUM
                                               V*: ...
                                                                            "I"                         PEARL JIMEti



      Last saved on: February 21, 2013 at 1:17 PM                                                                                Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 18
                               SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY


The People of the State of California,
                                               Plaintiff     Hon. Mark E. Hood
                                                             Clerk:   Lita Messina
vs.                                                          CSR:     Anne Hall - CSR#4942
                                                             Recording No.
Sorenson, Christopher,
                                               Defendant



Minutes: Further Proceedings                                 Case No.        SS112361A
         appointment of doctors                                              Courtroom 4


           March 19, 2013
Charges:
1: PC187(a) [Murder]              FEL




Nature of proceedings: Further proceedings appointment of doctors.
Deputy District Attorney Meredith Sillman for Steve Somers appeared.
Defendant appears and is in custody on this case.
Defendant appeared with Counsel Steven Liner.
Discussions are had by Court and respective counsel.
Pursuant to stipulation of counsels the Court appoints Dr. Elizabeth K. Lee to examine defendant pursuant to Penal
Code section 1027(a) and counsel further stipulate that the Court appoint the second doctor to examine the
defendant pursuant to Penal Code section 1027(a).
Case continued to Thursday, March 21, 2013 at 0830 in Salinas courtroom 04 for further proceedings and
appointment of second doctor pursuant to 1027(a) PC.
Defendant to remain In-Custody.
No bail allowed.
/I
                                           I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT IS A
                          piiiiteiz‘
                            i
                                           TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ON RLE IN MY OFFICE.
                                   ,/,
                                                             APR - 5213
                                           DATE
               k
              c. .V.• •   C4    • .`".:e                                  RIOR COURT
                          ?
                                           CONNIE MAllE

                                                                                    DEPUTY
          g PM°
                                                                       ON LLEZ




      Last saved on: April 5,2013 at 1:30 PM                                                            Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 19
                         SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY


The People of the State of California,
                                                    Plaintiff             Hon. Mark E. Hood
                                                                          Clerk:   Lita Messina
vs.                                                                       CSR:     Anne Hall - CSR#4942
                                                                          Recording No.
Sorenson, Christopher,
                                                    Defendant



Minutes: Further Proceedings                                              Case No.        S5112361A
         appointment of 2nd doctor                                                        Courtroom 4

         March 26, 2013
Charges:
1: PC187(a) [Murder] FEL



Nature of proceedings: Further proceedings appointment of second doctor.
Deputy District Attorney Steve Somers appeared.
Defendant appears and is in custody on this case.
Defendant appeared with Counsel Steve Liner.
Discussions are had by Court and respective counsel.
Joint motion to continue is granted.
The People indicate to the Court that the will be requesting an order from the Sixth District Appellate Court re:
defendant's mental health trial transcripts and other documents and if granted will file a protective order.
Case continued to Thursday, March 28, 2013 at 0830 in Salinas courtroom 04 for further proceedings/status
conference.
Defendant's presence is waived for March 28, 2013.
Defendant to remain In-Custody
                                                                                     I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT IS A
                                                          .

No bail allowed.                                              ;c*.: • •

                                                                                     TRUE COPY OF THE RICI AL ON FILE IN MY OFFICE.
                                        Z.."'• •
                                        = C./2 •
                                        =                                            DATE
                                                                                                           2
                                                                                     CONNIr                           OR COURT
                                         ::: .•
                                        .:' * * •
                                         a •
                                          aa
                                           a
                                          ....                               •,
                                                                             s.      BY                                     _DEPUTY
                                           I. e . •
                                            % l                             0‘
                                                                                               PEARt JMENE
                                                    "Ninitittito&




      Last saved on: March 26, 2013 at 4:36 PM                                                                            Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 20
 1                     SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

 2                          COUNTY OF MONTEREY

 3                     HONORABLE MARK E. HOOD, JUDGE

 4                               ---o0o---

     THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF        )
     CALIFORNIA,                       )
 6              PLAINTIFF,             )
                                       )
 7        vs.                          ) NO.     SS112361A
                                       )         SS120014A
 8   CHRISTOPHER SORENSON,             )         MS303459A
               DEFENDANT.              )
 9                                     )

10

11

12                      TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

13                   COURTHOUSE, SALINAS, CALIFORNIA

14                            MARCH 26, 2013

15
16                        ORIGINAL
17
18   APPEARANCES:

19
20   FOR THE PEOPLE:        OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
                            BY: STEVEN P. SOMERS
21                          DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

22

23   FOR THE DEFENDANT: STEVEN D. LINER, ESQ.

24
25
26

27
28              ANNE M. HALL, CSR 4942, OFFICIAL REPORTER


                       ANNE M. HALL, CSR 4942
 1               SALINAS, CALIFORNIA; MARCH 26, 2013
 2                         PROCEEDINGS
 3             THE COURT: Calling the case of People versus

 4   Sorenson, SS120014, SS112361, as well as accompanying

 5   misdemeanor. Appearances, please.
 6             MR. LINER: Steve Liner with Mr. Sorenson,

 7   present in custody.

 8             MR. SOMERS: Steve Somers appearing for the

 9   People.

10             THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
11             The record should reflect we had ongoing

12   discussions in chambers regarding the appointment of a

13   psychologist or psychiatrist under Penal Code 1072, et

14   sequitur. We've had one appointment at this point in

15   time. However, the parties need additional time to look
16   at additional psychologists or psychiatrists. The Court

17   also needs additional time to work on the details of those

18   issues.

19             At this point in time what the Court's intent is

20   to continue this to Thursday for a status update, all

21   counsel to work on their areas, the Court on its areas.
22   The defendant need not be present. However, he can be

23   present if you wishes to be. Mr. Liner?

24             MR. LINER: If he did not come on Thursday what

25   would be the next date we would set?
26             THE COURT: We would wait until Thursday to
27   determine that next date. The defendant would be ordered
28   to be present at the next date.


                    ANNE M. HALL, CSR 4942
 1             MR. LINER: Okay. He says he's fine with that.

 2             THE COURT: All right. We're going to continue

 3   this to Thursday. And I note, Mr. Liner, would you like

 4   8:30 or 10?

 5             MR. LINER:   8:30.

 6             THE COURT: Mr. Somers?

 7             MR. SOMERS: That's fine.

 8             THE COURT: Thursday at 8:30 for status. Then

 9   we'll pick a new date at that time for defendant's

10   presence. Mr. Liner or Mr. Somers?

11             MR. SOMERS: There's only one other thing to put

12   on the record, your Honor. Defense counsel and I have

13   believed that the reports generated by the doctors and the

14   defendant's conservatorship trials and the transcripts

15   from those trials would be helpful for the doctors in

16   evaluating the defendant's sanity in this case.

17             The defendant has signed, and as well as his

18   attorney, what I'm -- what's titled the Defendant's

19   Conditional Waiver of Privacy Rights in Conservatorship

20   Trials. Those have -- that waiver is conditional upon the

21   Court ordering a protective order to make sure that those

22   items are kept confidential and not disseminated.

23             Our next step would be to petition the Sixth

24   District. We were going to attach this document and

25   ascertain whether they would clarify if this meets within

26   the meaning of their order that suspended the previous

27   order where the Court had released the documents to the

28   People and to the press, or whether they want us to hold


                    ANNE M. HALL, CSR 4942               2
 1   off until they make a ruling on that writ that's pending

 2   before them.
 3             So I intend then to take this document, file a

 4   motion with the Sixth District to have them clarify

 5   whether this would be within the compliance of their order

 6   or outside the compliance of their order or whether they

 7   would modify the order to allow this.

 8             THE COURT: Are you going to serve all copies in

 9   the -- are you going to serve all real parties in the

10   Sixth District issue?

11             MR. SOMERS: I think we have to which would

12   include the Public Defender's Office.

13             THE COURT: Monterey Herald, Salinas Californian

14   and all other parties to that matter.

15             MR. SOMERS: I'm not sure any have standing, but

16   I'll certainly serve them.

17             MR. LINER: Judge, our position is that we

18   believe those documents would be relevant to the 1026

19   experts, whoever they will be. We know who one is. And

20   so it's for that reason that we have agreed to this

21   conditional waiver and limited waiver in anticipation of

22   the fact that they will be relevant to those evaluations.

23             THE COURT: All right. And that is -- and

24   again, you're seeking only the evaluations of the prior

25   doctors and not the trial transcript? Or are you also

26   seeking the trial transcript?

27             MR. LINER: We're agreeing to release the trial

28   transcripts as well, so yes. Both.


                    ANNE M. HALL, CSR 4942
 1             THE COURT: All right. And that would be to

 2   both of you and to the appointed doctors; is that correct?

 3             MR. SOMERS: That's correct. With the

 4   protective order issued by the Court that only those

 5   parties possess them.

 6             THE COURT: The Court obviously will not make

 7   any ruling at this time. We're going to wait for the

 8   response from the Appellate Court.

 9             MR. SOMERS: Thank you, your Honor.

10             THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

11                            ***000***

12
13

14

15
16
17

18
19

20

21
22

23

24
25
26
27
28


                    ANNE M. HALL, CSR 4942
 1   STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 2
 3   COUNTY OF MONTEREY

 4
 5             I, Anne M. Hall, a Certified Shorthand Reporter

 6   of the State of California, do hereby certify that I am

 7   the reporter who reported the foregoing proceedings in the

 8   matter entitled People of the State of California v.

 9   CHRISTOPHER SORENSON, SS112361A, that I reported the

10   foregoing proceedings fully and correctly, and that the

11   foregoing pages, number 1 - 4, inclusive, are a complete

12   and correct transcription of my stenotype notes taken at

13   said time and place.

14             Date: March 26, 2013

15
16

17

18                              /   1
19
                                        Anne M. Hall, CSR 4942
20
21

22

23
24
25

26
27

28


                    ANNE M. HALL, CSR 4942
EXHIBIT 22
                          SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY


The People of the State of California,
                                                       Plaintiff      Hon. Mark E. Hood
                                                                      Clerk:   Oscar Luna
vs.                                                                   CSR:     Anne Hall - CSR#4942
                                                                      Recording No.
Sorenson, Christopher,
                                                       Defendant



Minutes: Further Proceedings                                          Case No.      SS112361A
         Status conference                                                         .Courtroom 4

         March 28, 2013
Charges:
1: PC187(a) [Murder] FEL

Nature of proceedings: Further proceedings
Deputy District Attorney Steve Somers appeared.
Defendant not transported to court.
Attorney Steve Liner appeared for Defendant via telephone.
The Court appoints Dr. Gregory L. Katz to examine Defendant.
The People are to provide copies of police report to Dr. Katz.
Both parties are to prepare packets to assist Dr. Katz with his examination.
Case continued to Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 8:30am in Salinas courtroom 04 for status of report.
Defendant to personally appear.
Defendant to remain In-Custody
                                             00111111 1/////p,
No bail allowed.                             O'iMiti Of e                                                              IS A
                                       1s
                                      4:/4:„
                                                ........... .1// /
                                                          - It '%
                                                                         I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT
                                                                                                               OFFICE.
II                                               t.     A
                                                                         TRUE COPY OF THE iRIGINAL ON FILE IN MY

                                                                         DATE
                                                                         CON             LERK 11-1E UPE
                                                                                                                     EPUTY

                                   */
                                   7
                                          •

                                         4,11'                c
                                                      .. • ` ‘t   '              PEARL JIMENEZ
                                           %Nit in 11100




      Last saved on: April 4, 2013 at 11:18 AM                                                                         Page 1 of 1
                      DECLARATION OF STEVEN SOMERS

I, Steven Somers, do hereby declare as follows:

 1.     I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California.

My California Bar Number is 191435.

2.      I am a deputy district attorney for the Monterey County District Attorney's

Office and have been so employed by that office since 2001. Prior to my

employment with the Monterey County District Attorney's Office I was employed

as a deputy district attorney for the Shasta County District Attorney's Office from

1998.

3.      In December, 2011 I was assigned to the case of People v. Christopher

Sorenson, SS112361A. I have been the only prosecutor assigned to the criminal

case since Mr. Sorenson's arrest.

4.      Mr. Sorenson was initially arraigned on December 20, 2011. At that time

he entered a plea of not guilty.

5.      On February 19, 2013 Mr. Sorenson entered a plea of not guilty by reason

of insanity.

6.      Since February 19, 2013 I have worked with Mr. Sorenson's counsel in the

criminal case, Steven Liner, on the process of selecting psychiatrists or

psychologists to evaluate Mr. Sorenson pursuant to Penal Code § 1027. As part of

those discussions Mr. Liner and I discussed whether it would be beneficial for

these appointed examiners to review the transcripts from the two LPS jury trials

that are involved in this writ proceeding. In these discussions Mr. Liner indicated
to me he wanted the examiners to review the transcripts from the two LPS jury

trials. In these discussions Mr. Liner also indicated he did not object to the People

receiving copies of the transcripts from the two LPS jury trials.

7.       After speaking with Mr. Liner I drafted a document for Mr. Liner and Mr.

Sorenson to both sign indicating their agreement that copies of the transcripts from

both LPS jury trials would be provided to Mr. Sorenson, the People, and to both

examiners. To the best of my recollection I first gave Mr. Liner a copy of the

document on March 26, 2013.

8.      On March 26, 2013 Mr. Liner and Mr. Sorenson were both present in court

for the hearing in case SS112361A. Some time that morning Mr. Liner handed me

a signed copy of the document entitled Defendant's Conditional Waiver of Privacy

Rights in Conservatorship Trials. Attached as Exhibit "21" is a true and correct

copy of the document entitled Defendant's Conditional Waiver of Privacy Rights

in Conservatorship Trials.

     I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that

the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Salinas, California on April 11,

2013.

                                                                         ----



                                                          Steven Somers
                                                          -




                                                          Deputy District Attorney
EXHIBIT 21
         DEAN D. FLIPPO
     1
         MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
 2       Steven Somers, Deputy District Attorney
         230 Church Street, Building #3
 3       Salinas, CA 93901
         Telephone No. (831) 755-5070
 4
         FAX No. (831) 755-5068
 5

 6
         Attorneys for Plaintiff

 7

 8                                      SUPERIOR COURT OF MONTEREY COUNTY
                                         IN AND FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
 9

10                                                                    COURT CASE NO. SS112361A

11       The People of the State of California,                       DEFENDANT'S CONDITIONAL WAIVER
                                                                      OF PRIVACY RIGHTS IN
12
                                   v.                                 CONSERVATORSHIP TRIALS
13
         Christopher Sorenson.                                        Date: MARCH 26, 2013
14                                                                    Time: 10:00 AM
15
                                                                      Dept: 4

16
         The defendant herby conditionally waives any privacy rights he may have as to any reports generated by
17
         any doctors who evaluated him in regards to conservatorship trials MH5082 and MH5129. He also
18
         conditionally waives any privacy rights to the transcripts of the above referenced conservatorship trials.
19
         The defendant's waivers are conditioned upon the Court ordering these items released only to the Court
20
         appointed doctors assigned to evaluate his sanity claim, his attorney, and the District Attorney's Office.
21
         Furtheunore as a condition of the defendant's waiver, all parties who receive the conservatorship
22
         materials must be subject to a court order preventing their disclosure to any other persons.
23
         Dated: March 26, 2013
24

25
                                                  By:
                                                                Chri stop er Sorenson
26
                                                  By:
27
                                                                Steve Liner
28
                                                                Attorney for Christopher Sorenson


                                                               1
        Pursuant to the request of the defendant and with the agreement of the People, before the

Honorable Mark Hood; IT IS ORDERED that any reports generated by any doctors who evaluated the

defendant in regards to conservatorship trials MH5082 and MH5129 and the transcripts from those trials

be provided by the Court to the court appointed doctors evaluating the defendant's sanity, and to the

defendant's attorney, Steve Liner, and to the District Attorney's Office. Furtheintore, all persons

receiving these materials are directed to maintain the materials as confidential and to not provide them to

anyone else without prior agreement of the court.


Any willful violation of this order shall be punished as contempt.




                                                      Judge Mark Hood




                                                      2
                    CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

      I certify that the attached MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION AND

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT uses a 13

point Times New Roman font and contains 2,910 words.

      Dated: April 11,2013



                                Respectfully submitted,

                                DEAN D. FLIPPO,
                                DISTRICT ATTORNEY

                                By:



                               Glenn Pesenhofer
                                                 \J-)
                               Deputy District Attorney
                               Attorneys for the People
                               Real Party in Interest




                                         15
                             PROOF OF SERVICE

       I, the undersigned, do hereby declare:

       I am employed in the County of Monterey, California. I am over the age of
eighteen (18) years; a citizen of the United States; and not a party to the within
action. My business address is: 230 Church Street, Building 3, Salinas, CA 93901.

     On this date, Thursday April 11, 2013, I served the attached MOTION
TO DISMISS PETITION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT, in case number H038295, Christopher Sorenson
v. Monterey County Superior Court, on the interested parties in said cause, as
designated below:

X             (By U.S. Postal Service) By placing on that date at my place of
             business, a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with
             postage fully prepaid, for collection and mailing with the United
             States Postal Service where it would be deposited with the United
             States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of
             business.,

Said documents(s) is/are addressed as follows:

Honorable Mark E. Hood                           Annette Marie Cutino
Monterey County Superior Court                   Office of the County Counsel
240 Church Street                                168 West Alisal Street, 3 1d Floor
Salinas, CA 93901                                Salinas, CA 93901-2680

Donald E. Landis, Jr.                            Steven Dana Liner
Assistant Public Defender                        Liner Buck & Giordano
Monterey County Public Defender's Office         130 Olmstead Way, Suite A
111 W. Alisal Street                             Monterey, CA 93940
Salinas, CA 93901

California Dept. of Mental Health                Office of the Attorney General
Division of Legal Services                       455 Golden Gate Avenue
1600 9th Street                                  Suite 11000
Sacramento, CA 95814                             San Francisco, CA 94102

James M. Chadwick
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton
390 Lyton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this
declaration was executed on April 11, 2013, at Salinas, California.



                                               tY Andersen
                                         (Declarant

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:1
posted:4/24/2013
language:Latin
pages:37