People v. Papp CA5

Filed 5/13/16 P. v. Papp CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F069024 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCR01460) v.

FRANK STEVEN PAPP, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. James E. Oakley, Judge. Rachel Lederman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and Paul E. O’Connor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

As a result of his false belief that a friend laced his marijuana with acid, appellant Frank Steven Papp tried to strangle the friend with a rope. Appellant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon, not a firearm, in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1) and, in 1999, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI).1 Appellant was committed to a state mental hospital pursuant to section 1026 and, after serving his maximum term of commitment, the People successfully sought extensions of his commitment in accordance with section 1026.5, subdivision (b)(1). In February 2014, the People’s petition for another extension of appellant’s commitment was tried before a jury, and this appeal was taken from the March 13, 2014, order extending appellant’s commitment to Napa State Hospital for two years. (§ 1026.5, subd. (b)(1).) Appellant argues the two-year extension of his term is not supported by substantial evidence with respect to his representing “‘a substantial danger of physical harm to others’” and having “serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior.” (People v. Williams (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 861, 872; § 1026.5, subd. (b)(1); People v. Sudar (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 655, 661–662.) We find the appeal moot but, notwithstanding that finding, the jury’s determination was supported by substantial evidence. DISCUSSION I. Appeal of Commitment Order Moot Pursuant to section 1026.5, subdivision (b)(1), “[a] person may be committed beyond the term prescribed by subdivision (a) only under the procedure set forth in this subdivision and only if the person has been committed under Section 1026 for a felony and by reason of a mental disease, defect, or disorder represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others.” For defendants found NGI, each extension of their