People v. Woodson

Opinion

McKIBBEN, J.

*

In April 1981, appellant was charged with two counts of violating Penal Code section 476a (bad checks). Ultimately he was found not guilty by reason of insamty (Pen. Code, § 1026) by the court. He was committed to Napa State Hospital for the maximum term of three years, eight months.

On August 20 and November 12, he filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus alleging that Ms sanity was restored as provided in Penal Code section 1026.2. Thereafter, the court appointed a psycMatrist to examine appellant pursuant to

[3]

Evidence Code section 1017. Later two more psychiatrists were appointed to examine him.

Appellant waived a jury trial; the court after hearing the testimony of appellant and two psychiatrists determined that appellant’s sanity had not been restored.

The question on this appeal is what standard should be applied to determine whether a committed person’s sanity has been restored under the provisions of section 1026.2 of the Penal Code.

1

There is no standard or test of sanity set forth in the section; the burden of proving restoration of sanity is on the appellant.

Appellant contends that the standard to be used in section 1026.2 is the same used in section 1026.5, subdivision (b)(1),

2

and cites

In re Franklin

(1972) 7 Cal.3d 126 [101 Cal.Rptr. 553, 496 P.2d 465];

In re Moye

(1978) 22 Cal.3d 457 [149 Cal.Rptr. 491, 584 P.2d 1097] and

In re Jones

(1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 906 [68 Cal.Rptr. 32] in support of his position.

In

Franklin, supra,