People v. League CA6

Filed 1/15/25 P. v. League CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H051801 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 82442)

v.

LUCILLE IRENE LEAGUE,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT1 Lucille Irene League (League) appeals from an order denying her application for release upon restoration to sanity pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.2,2 under which a person committed to a state hospital can move to be released upon the showing that sanity has been restored. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), and League subsequently filed a supplemental brief on her own behalf. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the order. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3 In 1982, the court found League not guilty by reason of insanity of one count of murder with a knife. (§§ 187, 12022, subd. (b).) The court committed her to Napa State Hospital for the indeterminate term of 16 years to life. League was diagnosed with

1 Before Greenwood, P. J., Danner, J., Bromberg, J. 2 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. 3 The underlying facts are not relevant to the issues raised on appeal.

schizophrenia and psychosis with delusions of hyper-religiosity. Since 1982, she has been granted outpatient treatment eight times. She was last released to the Department of State Hospital’s Conditional Release Program (CONREP) in December 2019. League was then readmitted to Napa State Hospital in December 2021. In November 2022, League applied for release to an outpatient facility pursuant to section 1026.2 alleging her sanity was restored. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the application. At the hearing, the court heard testimony from several people, including League. League testified that she had made a lot of progress since coming back to the hospital and that she was “more stable than [she’s] ever been before in [her] life.” She testified that she would take her medication and attend treatment if she were released to an outpatient community, but that she would not participate in any “hypnotic techniques” in therapy because they violate her religion. Two chaplains from Napa State Hospital testified on League’s behalf that they did not consider League to be violent or overly religious. Dr. Alexis Caplan,4 a senior forensic psychologist who previously treated and evaluated League at Napa State Hospital, did not recommend outpatient treatment. She opined that League’s symptoms were often characterized by physical and verbal aggression and that she continued to lack the necessary insight to manage her symptoms independently or seek out appropriate help. Caplan did not feel comfortable recommending discharge because League disagreed with medical diagnoses, refused to participate in appropriate therapy, and had not developed skills to work collaboratively with others or take accountability for her risk of violence. Ramiro Carrillo, the community program director for Harper Medical Group South Bay CONREP, similarly opined that League was not ready for outpatient treatment and would need to participate in therapy, be open to feedback, and ensure her hyper-religiosity did not interfere with her treatment to be eligible for discharge.