People v. Sanabria CA3

Filed 8/9/22 P. v. Sanabria CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C093827

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17FE011857)

v.

JACOB GABERIELRO SANABRIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2018, defendant Jacob Gaberielro Sanabria was found not guilty by reason of insanity of murder and committed to the State Department of State Hospitals. He appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for outpatient treatment pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.2.1 Defendant argues the trial court’s ruling was not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm the court’s denial of his petition.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

I. BACKGROUND In December 2019, defendant filed his petition for transfer to outpatient treatment under section 1026.2. In March 2021, the court held a hearing on the petition. Defendant was the only witness to testify. At the close of his testimony, the People moved for a “directed verdict . . . in that Mr. Sanabria ha[d] failed to meet his legal burden by a preponderance of the evidence.”2 The court granted this motion, finding: “[T]he petition has failed on the preponderance of the evidence before me to establish that Mr. Sanabria would not pose an undue risk if under supervision and treatment in the community. [¶] Now, Mr. Sanabria, I take your testimony at face value, that you are making progress, you’ve recognized your condition, you’re working on coping skills, you’re working on a relapse plan, you understand the need for the medication. There’[re] no serious acts of violence while you were in the state hospital. And you are to be commended for that. But I’m also aware that this was a very serious crime of extreme violence. It occurred shortly after you had been released from a mental facility . . . . [¶] And as I understand the testimony, you were seeing privately a psychologist within a month before the killing, which is not quite outpatient status, but it is more akin to outpatient status than treatment inside the state hospital. [¶] And, again, without any showing of what treatment, what structure, what supervision would be available in an outpatient setting, I cannot find that there would be no undue hazard to the community.” The court continued: “I think there has to be a record that within the envisioned outpatient program, Mr. Sanabria would continue to take his medication, would be adequately supervised, there would be