Galindo was committed to a state hospital following a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity. In February, 2004, a petition for extended commitment under Penal Code section 1026.5 was filed. Following a court trial, the commitment was extended to 2006. On appeal, appellant argued that the recent case of In re Howard N. must be interpreted as requiring proof that a person under commitment has serious difficulty in controlling dangerous behavior. He argued that the trial court’s failure to consider this “control” issue was prejudicial. The appellate court agreed and reversed. Galindo’s inability to control his behavior was not established. Although there was evidence that Galindo did not control his behavior, it was not established that he could not. Remand was required for adjudication under the correct standard set forth in In re Howard N.