People v. Young CA3

Filed 5/22/15 P. v. Young CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C075380

v. (Super. Ct. No. NCR67682)

DAWN SERRENA YOUNG,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Dawn Serrena Young appeals from the denial of an application for restoration of sanity under Penal Code section 1026.2.1 On appeal, defendant alleges a federal constitutional violation because she should have been allowed “at least [to] present her case that she was either no longer dangerous or no longer if ever mentally ill, and satisfy the court that she did not need a year of supervision in the outpatient program to meet her burden of proof.” In support, defendant cites Foucha v. Louisiana (1992) 504

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

U.S. 71 [118 L.Ed.2d 437] (Foucha), which held substantive and procedural due process guarantees allow the state to confine an insanity acquittee in a mental institution only so long as the person is mentally ill and dangerous. (Id. at p. 77.) Though defendant does not cite the particular constitutional provision she believes the trial court violated in this case, we interpret the citation to Foucha as raising substantive and procedural due process challenges. Given that defendant makes no comparison to any other similarly situated persons, we determine no equal protection claim is raised. We reject defendant’s procedural due process argument because the trial court actually heard her request for immediate release. As to the substantive due process challenge, we reject it on the same basis as articulated in People v. Beck (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1676 (Beck). Accordingly, we affirm the order denying defendant’s application for immediate restoration to sanity. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2008, defendant was found not guilty by reason of insanity of second degree murder of her 18-month-old child. She was committed to Napa State Hospital for a maximum term of life. On June 27, 2013, defendant filed, in propria persona, a motion for substitution of counsel (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden)) with her application for restoration of sanity and request for a court or jury trial. On October 7, 2013, defendant withdrew her Marsden motion. The trial court commented that defendant’s in propria persona application for restoration of sanity should have been filed separately and “possibly not even filed at all.” Defendant’s trial attorney noted defendant had filed an application without any supporting documentation. Nonetheless, defense counsel stated, “I can have the petition filed” within two or three weeks. The trial court scheduled a hearing to review the documents defense counsel