People v. Clark CA3

Filed 3/30/15 P. v. Clark CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C076101

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 98F10531)

v.

ALPHONSO RAMON CLARK,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Alphonso Ramon Clark appeals from the summary denial of his petition for placement in a conditional release program pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.2.1 He argues the trial court’s denial of his petition without a hearing, appearance, or statement of reasons is erroneous. The People contend summary denial of defendant’s petition was proper because he was ineligible for release under section 1026.2 due to his extended commitment pursuant to section 1026.5, subdivision (b) (hereafter section 1026.5(b) [and related subparts]). We conclude defendant is statutorily ineligible to pursue release under the provisions of section 1026.2. Therefore, the trial court did not err in summarily denying his petition. We affirm the judgment.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In May 1999, defendant was found not guilty by reason of insanity of battery on a correctional officer (§ 4501.5) and gassing a correctional officer (§ 4501.1). He was committed to the State Department of Mental Health pursuant to former section 1026, with the commitment set to expire on October 15, 2007. In November 2007, following a petition by the People pursuant to section 1026.5 and a stipulation amongst the parties, the trial court extended defendant’s commitment by two years to October 15, 2009, and released defendant to a conditional release program.

In the ensuing years, defendant was repeatedly placed on outpatient status; his outpatient status was repeatedly revoked due to violations of the conditional release terms, and defendant’s commitment was repeatedly extended pursuant to section 1026.5 and the provisions of section 1600 et seq. Finally, in April 2013, pursuant to defendant’s stipulation, the court extended defendant’s commitment for two years to January 14, 2015, pursuant to section 1026.5(b).