People v. Bennett CA3

California Court of Appeal Oct 22, 2025 No. C101597Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal as moot because the trial court's order authorizing involuntary medication had expired by its own terms and pursuant to statutory limits. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the order remained in effect indefinitely while he was housed in jail.

Issues

Whether an appeal challenging an involuntary medication order becomes moot upon the expiration of the order's one-year term.
Whether the trial court's medication order authorized involuntary medication indefinitely while the defendant was in jail.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The expiration of the order renders this appeal moot, and we therefore dismiss it.”

“Construing the medication order as a whole and in light of the facts and issues before the court, we determine that the one-year expiration date applies to all parts of the involuntary medication order”

“The issue raised by Bennett here—that there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s medication order—is not one of broad public interest.”

Filed 10/22/25 P. v. Bennett CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101597

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CR2021- 2111, CR2023-0488, CR2024- v. 1951)

DAVID H. BENNETT,

Defendant and Appellant.

After finding defendant David H. Bennett incompetent to stand trial, the trial court issued a commitment order, which included the authorization of involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication to Bennett. Bennett appeals this order, contending that the trial court failed to make required statutory findings on the record and that the authorization to involuntarily medicate him was not supported by substantial evidence. The order authorizing involuntary medication expired during the pendency of this appeal. The expiration of the order renders this appeal moot, and we therefore dismiss it.

BACKGROUND Between 2021 and 2024, Bennett committed a variety of crimes, which resulted in charges in three separate cases.1 On May 7, 2024, defense counsel and the trial court declared a doubt as to Bennett’s competency. The trial court suspended proceedings under Penal Code2 section 1368 and appointed a doctor to evaluate Bennett’s competency to stand trial. Dr. Sirintip Rhee prepared a section 1368 competency evaluation on June 1, 2024.3 On June 4, 2024, after considering Dr. Rhee’s evaluation, the trial court found that Bennett was incompetent to stand trial under section 1368 for all three of his pending cases. The trial court referred the case to the community program director to prepare a report and recommendation concerning Bennett’s placement and treatment. A preplacement report was prepared on June 17, 2024, which recommended that Bennett be “referred to an appropriate forensic setting, as determined by the California Department of State Hospital’s continuum of care.” In the recommendation, the community program director instructed the trial court to indicate in its order whether involuntary antipsychotic medication was necessary or whether Bennett could choose to accept or refuse medication as part of his treatment.4

People v. Bennett CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C101597

DAVID H. BENNETT,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief