legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Brady CA2/6

mk's Membership Status

Registration Date: May 18, 2017
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 05:23:2018 - 13:04:09

Biographical Information

Contact Information

Submission History

Most recent listings:
P. v. Mendieta CA4/1
Asselin-Normand v. America Best Value Inn CA3
In re C.B. CA3
P. v. Bamford CA3
P. v. Jones CA3

Find all listings submitted by mk
P. v. Brady CA2/6
By
01:07:2019

Filed 12/20/18 P. v. Brady CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BILL BRADY,

Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B291916

(Super. Ct. No. 18PT-00102)

(San Luis Obispo County)

Bill Brady appeals from the order, entered after a jury trial, granting the People’s petition under Penal Code section 2970,[1] and requiring appellant to undergo continued involuntary treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) at the State Department of Mental Health for a period of one year. We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After his examination of the record, counsel filed a brief in which no issues were raised. On November 28, 2018, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. (People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304.)

On December 10, 2018, we received a supplemental letter brief from appellant which raises no arguable issues. Appellant asserts that evidence was available but never used at his trial and that “this case has already been tried and the case was overturned.” Both assertions are unsupported by the record and factually incorrect. The testimony of forensic psychologist Joe Debruin and appellant’s treatment records, constitute substantial evidence that he continues to meet the statutory criteria for commitment as an MDO. (§ 2962.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, Acting P. J.

We concur:

PERREN, J.

TANGEMAN, J.

Michael L. Duffy, Judge

Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

______________________________

Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.


[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.





Description Bill Brady appeals from the order, entered after a jury trial, granting the People’s petition under Penal Code section 2970, and requiring appellant to undergo continued involuntary treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) at the State Department of Mental Health for a period of one year. We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After his examination of the record, counsel filed a brief in which no issues were raised. On November 28, 2018, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. (People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304.)
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.
Views 8 views. Averaging 8 views per day.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale