Skip to content
Name: People v. Quiroz
Case #: C069280
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/23/2016

Trial court does not have authority to convene a competency hearing after the state hospital has found there is no substantial likelihood of restoration of competency. In 2008, a trial court found Quiroz incompetent to stand trial for assault with a deadly weapon and committed him to the state hospital for treatment. In 2010, the state hospital submitted its report stating Quiroz was still incompetent, was unlikely to regain competency in the foreseeable future, and recommended that conservatorship proceedings be initiated. The public guardian declined to file a conservatorship petition. Thereafter, the trial court held a competency hearing, found Quiroz's…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Gram
Case #: C061723
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/19/2012

In recommitting an MDO offender, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to commit the defendant to a facility other than the one where he was confined when the petition was filed. After serving his sentence for the 1994 assault on an elderly neighbor, defendant was paroled to Atascadero Hospital as an MDO. He was transferred first to Napa County Jail and then to California State Prison (CSP) Sacramento under Welfare and Institutions Code section 7301, because he posed a safety risk to others. Defendant challenged his placement at CSP Sacramento, which is under CDCR jurisdiction, as unconstitutional "punishment" and argued he…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Wilkinson
Case #: F057537
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/09/2010

A person facing civil commitment, based on mental retardation and dangerousness to herself and others pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 6500, has a right to be present at the hearing. The potential loss of liberty entitles the person to substantial procedural safeguards similar to a criminal defendant. Appointed counsel waived the client's presence, without consulting with her and against her expressed desire to be present. The attorney's authority to control procedural matters in a civil case does not authorize the relinquishment of substantial rights, such as the right to be present, without the client's consent. The court could…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Sanders
Case #: C058341
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/03/2009

Waiver of right to return hearing after exclusion from CRC was valid. Sanders was convicted of a domestic violence offense and was committed to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC). On appeal, he contended that the waiver he signed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 3053, waiving his right to be present at a hearing to impose sentence in the event he was rejected from CRC, was unauthorized and must be stricken. He argued that the "shall" language in the statute requires a mandatory return hearing which cannot be waived. The appellate court rejected the argument, finding that although the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Medrano
Case #: C056068
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/18/2008

When a person is initially committed to the California Rehabilitation Center, the sentence imposed is, for practical purposes, only an interim sentence. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement in two cases, appellant was sentenced to five years in prison, with the term, in part, comprised of an upper term sentence for second degree burglary. Imposition of sentence was suspended and appellant was committed to the California Rehabilitation Center. Several years later, the commitment was vacated and the five year term was imposed. The appellate court rejected the People’s argument that appellant's Cunningham claim was untimely as it was…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Jeffery
Case #: B187352
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 08/22/2006

Appellant pleaded no contest to several drug offenses and the trial court agreed to sentence her to a prison term of five years, and refer her for a psychological evaluation pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051, to determine her eligibility for commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC). The trial judge made no promises on the CRC commitment. The examining doctor who interviewed appellant opined that she was addicted to narcotics and would benefit from a residential treatment program. The trial judge refused to send appellant to CRC for unstated reasons. On appeal, appellant…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Chavez
Case #: D041385
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 01/30/2004
Subsequent History: None

Statutes that limit eligibility for the California Rehabilitation Center to narcotics addicts without making similar provisions for alcohol addicts do not violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection. The court here first declined to read into the statute an intent to include those defendants who are addicted to alcohol, holding that the plain language of the statute required no such interpretation. The court then held that the distinction did not invoke equal protection issues, because it is rational for the state to make a distinction between the use of alcohol, which is legal, and the use of narcotics, which…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lizarraga
Case #: C041206
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/15/2003
Subsequent History: None

Appellant, a drug addict, was convicted of receiving stolen property. On appeal, he raised for the first time the issue of commitment to CRC as a drug addict. He conceded that he did not raise the issue of a CRC commitment in the trial court, but contended that Planavsky wrongly applied the Scott waiver doctrine to CRC commitments, which do not involve ordinary sentencing issues. The appellate court here rejected the argument and agreed with Planavsky. The rationale of the waiver doctrine - to bring errors to the trial court's attention so that they can be…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Masters
Case #: C038004
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/28/2002
Subsequent History: None

The trial court acted within its discretion in denying a referral for an evaluation to determine if appellant should be confined for drug rehabilitation at CRC. Appellant had an extensive history of drug offenses, including poor performance on probation. Trial counsel had requested the referral at sentencing, citing that his client was addicted to methamphetamine, and that defendant had not demonstrated a pattern of criminality sufficient to deny him a CRC referral. The People opposed the referral citing defendant was a "dope dealer." The court's comments at sentencing demonstrated that it accepted the claim of addiction but…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. McGinnis
Case #: A088732
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 03/02/2001
Subsequent History: None

The trial court abused its discretion in failing to refer appellant for treatment at the California Rehabilitation Center. "In considering whether to order a CRC evaluation for an addicted person, the trial court may not merely ‘parrot' the statutory standard for refusing to order an examination, but must proffer adequate reasons for doing so. (People v. Granado (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 194, 202-204...)" Based upon the trial court's statements at sentencing and the strong factual record supporting a referral, the appellate court concluded the trial judge failed to articulate a proper statutory basis for refusing the requested evaluation. …

View Full Summary