California Court of Appeal

Order extending defendant's commitment to a state mental hospital for the fifth time is affirmed, where: 1) defendant cannot satisfy his burden to show that counsel's waiver of a jury trial was invalid nor is it reasonably probable a jury would have returned a more favorable verdict; 2) a single opinion by a psychiatric expert that a defendant is currently dangerous due to a mental disorder can constitute substantial evidence to support the extension of a commitment; 3) counsel may waive a jury at a defendant's direction, with a defendant's knowledge and consent, or, on behalf of an incompetent defendant in a commitment proceeding; and 4) defendant's constitutional claims fail.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/25/2013
• Published 04/25/2013

Judges

• RUSHING,

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel