Defendant’s plea to resisting an executive officer by use of force or violence (Pen. Code, § 69) supported the trial court’s finding the offense came within the Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO) Act. In 2014 Woods pleaded guilty to deterring and resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69) and was sentenced to two years in prison. In October 2015 the Board of Parole Hearings certified him for MDO treatment. On appeal he claimed the evidence was insufficient to show his offense came within the MDO Act. Held: Affirmed. A defendant may be committed for treatment as an MDO if he meets the criteria for an MDO and was sentenced to prison for an enumerated offense or an unenumerated offense that involved the use of force or violence or the threat to use force or violence likely to result in substantial physical harm (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (e)(2)(A)-(Q)). The facts necessary to establish that the defendant’s offense comes within the MDO Act may not be proved through a mental health expert’s testimony (People v. Stevens (2015) 62 Cal.4th 352). A Penal Code section 69 violation is not an offense enumerated in the MDO Act. Section 69 can be violated by attempting with threats or violence to deter an officer from performing his duties and by resisting an officer by force or violence. Woods was charged with and pleaded guilty to both deterring and resisting, which included an admission that he used force and violence in committing the crime. This proved that Woods used force or violence during his offense, bringing him within the MDO Act (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (e)(2)(P)).

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B269253.PDF