People v. Brady CA2/6

Filed 10/13/25 P. v. Brady CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B341138 (Super. Ct. No. 24PT-00564) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

BILL BRADY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Brady appeals from the trial court’s order extending his civil commitment after a jury found he qualified as an offender with a mental health disorder. (Pen. Code, § 2970 et seq.)1 He contends the trial court abused its discretion when it required him to wear restraints during his jury trial. We affirm. Facts and Procedural Background In August 2024, the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney filed a petition to extend appellant’s involuntary commitment pursuant to section 2970.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

In September 2024, at a hearing prior to trial, the prosecution entered several exhibits into evidence, including appellant’s mental health, treatment, and disciplinary records. The prosecution described several incidents of unprovoked violence going back to 2021 and requested that appellant be restrained during the proceedings. Defense counsel argued that shackling appellant would prejudice the jury. The trial court also heard from the correctional sergeant who stated that custody staff had “significant concerns with . . . safety . . . if [appellant] were to come out of his restraints.” The sergeant indicated that he had spoken to staff at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) where appellant was currently residing. Appellant was described by staff as “highly assaultive” and was currently assigned the “highest level security.” Appellant had also engaged in several batteries on a peace officer and one inmate, with his most recent act of violence occurring just two months prior to trial. The sergeant stated, “I believe taking [appellant] out of restraints would pose significant risk to defense, prosecution, staff and the public.” After some discussion and considering the evidence presented, the trial court found appellant created a substantial risk based on his history of assault and ordered that he be shackled. At trial, Dr. Sylvia Torrez, a psychologist at the California State Prison—Sacramento (CSPS) testified that appellant suffered from a severe mental disorder, specifically schizoaffective disorder bipolar type. His symptoms, which included psychosis, hallucinations, religious delusions, and disorganized thinking, were not in remission. He had “limited”