People v. Espinoza CA3

Filed 3/18/21 P. v. Espinoza CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C090483

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. NCR83573)

v.

GEORGIANN PATRICIA ESPINOZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Georgiann Patricia Espinoza appeals from an order that extends for two years her commitment to the state mental hospital pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.5.1 The parties agree that we should dismiss defendant’s appeal because it is non- justiciable and vacate the superior court’s order because it was premature. We will dismiss the appeal.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

I. BACKGROUND In 2012, defendant entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity to the charge of arson of an inhabited structure or property (§ 451, subd. (b)), and the trial court found that she had been insane at the time of her crime. On June 8, 2012, the superior court committed defendant to Napa State Hospital for a maximum term of eight years, with 94 days of custody credit. On May 15, 2019, the district attorney’s office filed a petition to extend defendant’s commitment. Finding that defendant posed a substantial danger of physical danger to others, the superior court extended the commitment by two years, to August 16, 2021. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. II. DISCUSSION The attorney general contends, and defendant agrees, that this appeal must be dismissed because the case is not justiciable. We agree. “A criminal defendant who pleads [not guilty by reason of insanity] and who is found legally insane at the time of the offense may be committed to a state medical facility for a period as long as the maximum sentence that could have been imposed for the underlying offense.” (People v. Tran (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1160, 1165, citing § 1026.5, subd. (a)(1).) Except as provided in section 1026.5, a “person may not be kept in actual custody longer than the maximum term of commitment.” (§ 1026.5, subd. (a)(1).) The phrase “maximum term of commitment” means “the longest term of imprisonment which could have been imposed for the offense or offenses of which the person was convicted, including the upper term of the base offense and any additional terms for enhancements and consecutive sentences which could have been imposed less any applicable credits as defined by Section 2900.5, and disregarding any credits which could have been earned pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 2930) of Chapter 7 of Title 1 of Part 3.” (§ 1026.5, subd. (a)(1).) By statute, “[t]ime spent on outpatient status, except when