California Court of Appeal

Order extending defendant's commitment to a state mental hospital for the sixth time is affirmed, where: 1) the record does not suggest that defendant was unaware of his right to a jury trial, that defendant wanted a jury trial, or was unaware that counsel intended to waive it; 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) it is not reasonably possible that defendant would have obtained a more favorable result had the court ordered his presence at a pretrial hearing and directly advised him of his right to a jury trial; and 4) the constitutional requirement of a personal waiver in criminal cases is inapplicable because a commitment trial is fundamentally a civil proceeding.

Appellate Information

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

Judges

• RUSHING

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel