P. v. Tyler
Filed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARTHUR JAMES TYLER, Defendant and Appellant. | D048730 (Super. |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kerry Wells, Judge. Judgment affirmed and remanded for further proceedings
Arthur James Tyler appeals a judgment finding him incompetent to stand trial, contending that since his period of commitment has now exceeded the maximum term he could have served for his criminal cases, he should be released. We affirm the judgment but remand to the superior court for further proceedings.
FACTUAL
In June 2005, Tyler pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor offense of making a criminal threat (Pen. Code,[1] §§ 17, subd. (b)(4), 422) in San Diego County Superior Court case No. CN194973.[2] The court suspended imposition of sentence for three years and granted probation conditioned, inter alia, on his serving 33 days in custody, a condition that was suspended. By late March 2006, Tyler's probation had been revoked and reinstated several times and he had been credited with 296 days of custody, consisting of 198 days of actual custody plus 98 days of conduct credits.
On
On
DISCUSSION
A defendant who was has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial must be
returned to the committing court and the mental health director or the director's designee notified when the defendant has been committed for one year or for a period equal to the maximum term of imprisonment provided by law for the most serious offense charged in a misdemeanor complaint, whichever is shorter. (§ 1370.01, subd. (c)(1).) In determining the maximum period of commitment, the defendant is entitled to have credit for time served in custody prior to his commitment. (See People v. Callahan (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 678, 684-685.)
When the defendant is returned to the committing court, if it appears to the court that the defendant is gravely disabled, then the court shall initiate conservatorship proceedings. (§ 1370.01, subd. (c)(2).) The court also has discretion to dismiss the charges in the interest of justice pursuant to section 1385. (§ 1370, subd. (d); In re Banks (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 864, 869 [" While the statute does not explicitly require dismissal when the incompetency commitment has expired and the accused has already been confined for a period equal to the maximum sentence for the charged offense, it would be a rare case in which dismissal would not be granted]." )
Here, the order of commitment made in April 2006 specified a one-year commitment, which appeared to be based on the maximum one-year term for making a criminal threat in case No. CN194973 and stated Tyler had 37 days of credit. However, as the Attorney General concedes, at the time of his commitment, Tyler had a far greater number of credits, those credits must be subtracted from the maximum term of commitment, and at this point, Tyler has now been committed for more than the maximum term statutorily committed. Accordingly, we order Tyler returned to the committing court for further proceedings, including a correct calculation of his total credits.
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment determining Tyler was mentally incompetent to stand trial, order Tyler returned to the committing court, and remand for further proceedings.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, J.
McINTYRE, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
[2] We grant Tyler's motion to take judicial notice of the court records in San Diego County Superior Court case Nos. CN194973 and CN209725.
