People v. Mitchell CA3

Filed 6/28/24 P. v. Mitchell CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C099912

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 01F03956)

v.

BASILIO MITCHELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Basilio Mitchell appeals the trial court’s order extending his involuntary commitment for treatment as an offender with a mental health disorder. He contends the record does not affirmatively demonstrate that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. We agree and reverse.1

1 Defendant also claims the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s findings and that the expert testimony was speculative and unreliable. Because the lack of a valid jury trial waiver compels reversal, we need not address these claims. 1

I. BACKGROUND2 In 2005, defendant pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code,3 § 192, subd. (a)) and admitted personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced him to 11 years (the upper term) for the voluntary manslaughter and four years (the middle term) for the firearm use enhancement. Prior to release on parole, defendant was committed for treatment as an offender with a mental health disorder (OMHD).4 In 2023, the People petitioned to extend defendant’s commitment. Defense counsel requested a jury trial at a hearing in which defendant appeared remotely. But at a subsequent hearing, in which defendant was not present, defense counsel answered affirmatively when asked if the proceeding would be a bench trial. During the pretrial conference, the trial court stated “[t]he matter was sent up for court trial” because defendant had “waived jury trial.” A bench trial was held, and the trial court ultimately granted the People’s petition. Defendant timely appealed. II. DISCUSSION Defendant argues the recommitment order must be reversed because the record does not establish that he waived his right to a jury trial. The People agree, as do we.