People v. Superior Court (Woods)

California Court of Appeal Apr 11, 1990 No. A048581Published

Before: Haning

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that Penal Code section 1026.2 mandates a two-step process for restoration of sanity, requiring an applicant to complete one year in an outpatient program before a court can determine if sanity has been restored for outright release.

Issues

Whether a court may bypass the statutory requirement of a one-year outpatient program before conducting a hearing on the outright release of an NGI committee.
Whether the application of the current section 1026.2 outpatient requirement to a defendant who entered an NGI plea prior to its enactment violates the ex post facto clause.

Disposition. Writ of mandate issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The statute explicitly states that “[t]he court shall not determine whether the applicant has been restored to sanity until the applicant has completed the one year in the appropriate local mental health program.””

“Since real party has never been an outpatient, respondent superior court is specifically barred by statute from proceeding directly to the issue of outright release.”

“Retroactive changes in the law which result in increased terms of commitment for NGI defendants are not considered ex post facto because the commitments are not penal but for treatment purposes.”

Opinion

HANING, J.

Real party in interest Leonard Woods, who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to a state mental hospital,

[616]

seeks his release from his hospital commitment on the ground that his sanity has been restored. (Pen. Code, § 1026.2.)

Section 1026.2, subdivision (e) provides that no person shall be released for restoration of sanity until after he or she spends a year in a local outpatient program. Real party has not undergone outpatient treatment as part of his commitment, but respondent superior court proposes to conduct a section 1026.2 hearing on the issue of real party’s outright release. The People seek a writ of mandate to compel the court to proceed on the issue of outpatient suitability only. We will issue the requested writ.

Real party pled not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) to a charge of train derailing (§219) in 1980. He was duly committed to the California State Hospital system for life. In October 1989, he petitioned the superior court, by letter, for release on the ground of restoration of sanity. (§ 1026.2.) In response to a court request the medical director of Napa State Hospital, where real party is currently confined, filed a letter with the court supporting the petition for release on the ground that real party is no longer a danger to the community. It is apparent from this letter, and real party essentially concedes, that real party has never been in an outpatient program.

The superior court set the sanity petition for jury trial. Apparently on the belief that this action indicated the trial court was planning to conduct a hearing on the issue of outright release rather than suitability for outpatient treatment, the People moved to vacate the jury trial and took the position that section 1026.2, subdivision (e) required a year in an outpatient program as a precursor to release. The trial court denied the motion by minute order, and the next day filed a “Clarification Order,” which recites: “The Minute Order ... Is Hereby Clarified to Read: Motion to Vacate jury trial on restoration of sanity is denied. The jury trial is confirmed . . .

People v. Superior Court (Woods)

AI Brief

HANING, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief