People v. Garcia CA5

California Court of Appeal Nov 9, 2021 No. F081650Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that the defendant, due to a mental disorder, posed a substantial danger of physical harm to others and had serious difficulty controlling her behavior, justifying a two-year extension of her commitment.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the defendant posed a substantial danger of physical harm to others under Penal Code section 1026.5, subdivision (b)(1).
Whether the expert testimony provided by the prosecution constituted substantial evidence to support the extension of the defendant's commitment.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A single psychiatric opinion that an individual is dangerous because of a mental disorder constitutes substantial evidence to support an extension of the defendant’s commitment under section 1026.5.”

“Hannifin’s opinion of defendant’s dangerousness as a result of her mental condition was a prediction based on her review of defendant’s history and records, examination of defendant, and professional training and experience.”

Filed 11/9/21 P. v. Garcia 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F081650 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCR032569) v.

YADIRA GARCIA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Madera County. Mitchell C. Rigby, Judge. Conness A. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Darren K. Indermill and Paul E. O’Connor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Smith, J.

Defendant Yadira Garcia was found not guilty by reason of insanity of battery of a nonconfined person while in prison in 2009. Between 2009 and 2012 she was committed to the State Department of State Hospitals-Patton (Patton State Hospital); she was released to an outpatient program between 2012 and 2015; and in 2015 she was again committed to Patton State Hospital where her commitment was extended by the trial court for two years in 2016 and again in 2018. In 2020, a jury found that defendant represented a substantial risk of physical harm to others as a result of her mental disease, defect, or disorder, and the trial court extended her commitment at Patton State Hospital for two years. Defendant appeals that order, contending that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict. The People disagree. We affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On July 23, 2008, the Madera County District Attorney filed a complaint charging defendant with battery on a nonconfined person while confined in state prison (Pen. Code, § 4501.5;1 count 1). On January 7, 2009, defendant pled guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. After entry of the pleas, the trial court took evidence and found defendant not guilty by reason of insanity. On January 28, 2009, the trial court committed defendant to the custody of Patton State Hospital for treatment (§ 1026) for a term not to exceed four years. On March 21, 2012, the trial court ordered that defendant be released to outpatient treatment through the Central California Conditional Release Program (CONREP). Her release to CONREP was extended three times—on April 24, 2013, on March 26, 2014, and again on May 13, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the trial court found that defendant violated the rules of CONREP. The court further concluded that she continued to suffer from a mental

People v. Garcia CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief