People v. Nance

Filed 5/12/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C093044

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 08F09790)

v.

JEREMY NANCE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Stacy Boulware Eurie, Judge. Affirmed.

Linda J. Zachritz, 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, Paul E. O'Connor, Deputy Attorney Generals, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1

In 2011, defendant Jeremy Nance was found not guilty by reason of insanity of sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4, subd. (b))1 and committed to Atascadero State Hospital. Defendant’s term of commitment has been extended several times under section 1026.5. He appeals from the trial court’s denial of his application for outpatient treatment pursuant to section 1026.2. After hearing defendant’s evidence, the trial court granted the People’s motion for a “directed verdict,” finding defendant “could be a danger to the health and safety of others due to a mental defect, disease, or disorder if under supervision and treatment in the community.” On appeal, defendant contends the court erred by weighing the evidence on a motion for directed verdict. Because the trial court was the fact finder, and therefore entitled to weigh the evidence, we will affirm its denial of defendant’s application.2 I. BACKGROUND On October 28, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on defendant’s application for outpatient treatment. Defendant was the only witness. After the defendant rested his case, the People made an oral motion “for a directed verdict in that, at this stage . . . the burden of proof has not been met by” defendant. The court explained it was struck by defendant’s “vacillation between whether or not he thinks he needs his medication, whether or not he thinks his medication is doing anything for him, whether or not he perceives his own condition and housing as necessary in terms of his view that he doesn’t have a mental illness.” The court found defendant had failed to meet his burden “primarily because of his own ability or inability, or refusal, to acknowledge his condition, his access to treatment, his involvement in