P. v. Super. Ct. CA1/3

Filed 3/27/13 P. v. Super. Ct. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN A136005 FRANCISCO COUNTY, (City & County of San Francisco Respondent; Super. Ct. No. 106557) WILLIAM MITCHELL, Real Party in Interest.

On March 14, 2012, the People filed a petition, pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.5,1 seeking to extend a state hospital commitment of real party in interest William Mitchell. The trial court granted Mitchell’s motion to dismiss the petition on the ground it lacked jurisdiction because the petition had not been filed before the expiration of Mitchell’s term of commitment. The People now seek extraordinary writ review challenging the dismissal order, which is opposed by Mitchell. We conclude that under the circumstances the trial court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the March 14, 2012 petition. Accordingly, we grant the People’s petition for writ of mandate.

1 All further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1982, William Mitchell was committed to a state hospital based on his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity to a charge of felony assault. Since that time, he has been recommitted to the state hospital for successive two-year commitments. On October 19, 2009, the People filed a timely petition to extend Mitchell’s commitment (due to expire on January 16, 2010) for an additional two years. Thereafter, the matter was continued over 20 times, either at Mitchell’s request or with his acquiescence (i.e., without his objection). On January 27, 2012, Mitchell signed a “declaration” (hereafter referred to as a stipulation), stating, in pertinent part, that he forfeited his right to a jury, and he agreed “to extend [his] commitment for the statutory period pursuant to Penal Code [s]ection 1026 and 1026.5.” At a March 7, 2012 proceeding, Mitchell’s counsel informed the trial court and the prosecutor that Mitchell “ha[d] signed a stipulation to his current hospitalization.” However, Mitchell’s stipulation was not filed at that time. Instead, his counsel requested “that this matter, the trial date of March the 9th be vacated, and we continue it to March the 14th . . . to deal with the stipulation and the possibility of a further addition [sic].” The trial court granted the request and continued the matter for trial “setting.” On March 14, 2012,2 when the trial court called the case, the prosecutor initially asked whether the purpose of the hearing was to file a petition. Mitchell’s counsel objected, stating that any petition filed that day would be untimely, and Mitchell wanted to file his stipulation that concerned the October 2009 petition. Mitchell’s stipulation had not been previously filed because of some confusion about whether a new recommitment petition had been filed. The court then stated it had a petition dated March 14. The prosecutor requested permission to file the petition that day. The court granted the