People v. Luna CA5

California Court of Appeal Dec 21, 2022 No. F083626Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court's extension of the defendant's commitment was reversed because the court failed to obtain a valid jury trial waiver from the defendant on the record or establish his incapacity to waive that right.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred by accepting a jury trial waiver from defense counsel without obtaining a personal waiver from the defendant or establishing his incapacity to waive the right.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the trial court must obtain any waiver of the right to a jury trial from the defendant on the record.”

“an invalid waiver of the right to a jury trial is such a serious error, that it “is not susceptible to ordinary harmless error analysis and automatically requires reversal.””

Filed 12/21/22 P. v. Luna 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F083626 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CF99638211) v.

RUBEN LUNA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gregory T. Fain, Judge. Stephanie L. Gunther, 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, Louis M. Vasquez and Amanda D. Cary, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Poochigian, J. and Franson, J.

Defendant Ruben Luna appeals the extension of his commitment to the State Department of State Hospitals to April 20, 2023. Our review of the record in this case and the laws governing the waiver of the right to a jury trial requires we reverse the decision of the trial court to extend the commitment and remand this matter for further proceedings. BACKGROUND In February 2000, defendant pled not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) to a violation of Penal Code1 section 647.6 subdivision (c)(2). In March 2000, defendant was committed to a state hospital. On January 6, 2021, the People filed a petition to extend defendant’s commitment to a state hospital pursuant to section 1026.5, for a period of two years. The petition was necessary as defendant’s maximum term of commitment was set to expire on April 20, 2021. Following numerous continuances, a hearing on the petition to extend defendant’s commitment to a state hospital was held on November 30, 2021. While addressing various preliminary matters, the trial court engaged in the following exchange:

“[THE COURT:] Okay. So, [defense counsel], before we turn to our motion, pretrial, parties and discussion of those items, I want to verify, because I’m looking at the record speaking to Judge Idiart’s court and presiding judge’s court, and [d]efense counsel may do this on behalf of [defendant]—may waive the jury trial.

“Has that already been waived, or you need me to note that for the record at this time—or, [defense counsel]?

People v. Luna CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief