Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Roberts CA4/1

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: D086830

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/27/26 P. v. Roberts CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D086830

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD237246)

ERIC PATRICK ROBERTS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Carlos O. Armour, Judge. Affirmed.
Eric Patrick Roberts, in pro. per.; and Laura Arnold, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Eric Patrick Roberts appeals from an order following a bench trial
recommitting him as an offender with mental health disorder (OMHD) under
Penal Code sections 2970 and 2972.1 His counsel on appeal has filed an
opening brief asking this court to conduct an independent review of the
record under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436) (Wende). Roberts was given the opportunity to
file a supplemental brief and then submitted a letter disclaiming his guilt on
the qualifying offense and asserting he is in remission. As explained below,
we conclude there is no reversible error and therefore affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In August 2014, Roberts pled guilty to assault with intent to commit
rape (§ 220, subd. (a)(1)), admitting an enhancement under section 667.5,
subdivision (b). The court sentenced Roberts to a total prison term of five
years.
In 2016, Roberts was committed to the California Department of State
Hospitals as an OMHD under section 2962. Each year since 2019, the court
has ordered a one-year extension of Roberts’s civil commitment under
sections 2970 and 2972. In support of the March 2025 petition, the People
attached an affidavit from the medical director of a state hospital. The
medical director opined that Roberts suffered from a “severe mental disorder”
that was “not in remission,” that his disorder could not be kept in remission if
his treatment was not continued, and that he “represent[ed] a substantial
danger of physical harm to others.” This opinion was supported by an
included forensic report.

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

OMHD prisoners were previously referred to as mentally disordered
offenders or MDOs, but the Legislature changed the terminology in 2019.
(People v. McCray (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 260, 264, fn. 1.)

2
Roberts denied the allegations in the petition and requested a bench
trial. The court appointed two doctors to examine Roberts and provide
opinions about whether his commitment should be extended for another year.
Both doctors appointed by the court submitted reports that indicated Roberts
has a severe mental illness which is not in remission and requires continuing
treatment. One worried that Roberts would “decompensate and become
symptomatic if he were discharged into the community” and would “represent
a substantial risk of physical harm to others.” Similarly, at the bench trial,
two doctors testified that Roberts suffered from a severe mental disorder that
was not in remission, citing continued hallucinations, anxiety, and self-
injurious behavior. Accordingly, they each determined that Roberts
represented “a substantial danger of physical harm to others” and was not
prepared for discharge.
Finally, Roberts elected to testify. He agreed with his diagnosis and
identified the symptoms associated with it—paranoia and delusions—
admitting that he experienced those symptoms in the preceding six months.
He claimed he was compliant with his medication and had completed a
discharge plan; he provided a variety of explanations for missing group
programs. Roberts admitted an increase in anxiety, which he attributed to
his commitment. He testified that he did not commit the crime he was
incarcerated for and disputed the details of the incident.
Ultimately, the court determined the petition’s allegations were true
and recommitted Roberts to the California Department of State Hospitals for
an additional one-year term, until July 15, 2026.
DISCUSSION
Roberts’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under the authority
of Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, setting forth

3
a statement of the case and a summary of the facts and procedural history.
Counsel raised no specific issues on appeal, arguing an Anders/Wende
approach is appropriate.
On November 24, 2025, we issued an order stating that Roberts’s
counsel had filed a brief identifying no arguable issues and granting Roberts
30 days to file a supplemental brief. On December 29, Roberts filed a letter
in which he stated, among other things, that he is in remission and prepared
to be released. He asserted he was not guilty of the underlying crime to
which he pled guilty, in part because “nobody got hurt and nothing was
missing or stolen from the residence.”
The supplemental brief submitted by Roberts does not expressly set
forth any specific argument for reversible error in the issuance of the
extension order. But he appears to implicitly argue there is insufficient
evidence to support his recommitment. In so arguing, he has the burden on
appeal to show that substantial evidence does not support the order. “When
a civil appeal challenges findings of fact, the appellate court’s power begins
and ends with a determination of whether there is any substantial evidence—
contradicted or uncontradicted—to support the trial court’s findings.”
(Schmidt v. Superior Court (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 570, 582.) The testimony
of a single credible witness may constitute substantial evidence. (In re
Marriage of Mix (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604, 614.) If an appellant’s brief cites only
evidence favorable to the appellant and disregards evidence that supports a
judgment, we may treat a substantial evidence argument as forfeited and
presume that the record contains evidence sufficient to support the judgment.
(Doe v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel & Emly (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th
209, 218 (Doe).)

4
It may be that Roberts forfeited any substantial evidence argument on
appeal by referencing evidence favorable to him and disregarding evidence
that supports the order. (Doe, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 218.) But even if
we assume he has not forfeited that contention, we conclude that substantial
evidence supports the order. The record shows that examining psychologists
interviewed Roberts, consulted treatment team members, reviewed his
treatment records, probation report, and prior forensic evaluations. They
considered Roberts’s continued hallucinations, increased anxiety, and self-
injurious behavior. Although Roberts was compliant with his medication
regimen, he was inconsistent with his attendance at groups and lacked
insight into his qualifying conviction.
Based on the expert reports, testimony, and other evidence in the
record, we conclude there is substantial evidence to support the court’s true
finding on the petition’s allegations and the order extending Roberts’s
commitment pursuant to sections 2970 and 2972.
In light of this analysis, we decline to exercise our discretion to
independently review the record on appeal for reversible error. (Cf. People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 231–232 [in § 1172.6 resentencing case,
when appointed counsel submits briefs finding no arguable issues, appellate
court must evaluate specific arguments in appellant’s supplemental brief but
need not independently review the record on appeal to identify unraised
issues].)

5
DISPOSITION
The order extending Roberts’s commitment pursuant to sections 2970
and 2972 is affirmed.

DATO, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BUCHANAN, J.

KELETY, J.

6