P. v. Verdin

Filed 3/17/06 P. v. Verdin CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Carl E. Davis, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct., assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

Andrew E. Rubin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Rhonda L. Cartwright-Ladendorf, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Annie Featherman Fraser and Robert M. Foster, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

The trial court found that defendant Joseph Verdin is a mentally disordered offender within the meaning of Penal Code^[1] sections 2970 and 2972. The trial court therefore ordered him to be recommitted for one year for continued involuntarily treatment. He appeals, contending that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hold a hearing on the recommitment petition because the hearing was held after the prior commitment expired.

FACTS

Mr. Verdin's initial offense was the assault of a woman on the street in 1992. His committing offense was an assault on a sheriff's deputy, a violation of section 243, subdivisions (c) and (d). Mr. Verdin has been classified as a mentally disordered offender since April 18, 1994. He has regularly been recommitted for further involuntary treatment. At the subject recommitment hearing, a doctor and a psychologist testified that Mr. Verdin meets the criteria established by the statute: he has a severe mental disorder, he is not in remission, and he represents a substantial danger to others. The evidence of each of these elements was uncontradicted, and Mr. Verdin's appellate counsel does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support these conclusions.

Facts Relating to the Jurisdictional Issue

On August 5, 2003, the clinical staff at Patton State Hospital recommended that Mr. Verdin be recommitted for an additional year of involuntary treatment pursuant to section 2970.

On February 19, 2004, the district attorney filed the subject petition for continued involuntary treatment. It alleges that Mr. Verdin's prior commitment would expire on April 18, 2004.

On March 18, 2004, the trial court, Judge Hanks, set the case for a jury trial commencing April 12, 2004. At defendant's request, the court appointed a doctor to examine Mr. Verdin. The doctor's report was due April 8, 2004. On April 8, the trial court was advised that the doctor's report had not been completed but the trial commencement date remained April 12.

On April 12, 2004, trial was continued at Mr. Verdin's request until April 14, 2004. On April 14, four days before the commitment expired, Mr. Verdin moved to dismiss the action on grounds that a trial and a new commitment order could not be obtained before expiration of the prior commitment order. The People responded by requesting a continuance. The deputy stated that she had just received the doctor's report, and she needed time to discuss it with her expert witnesses. She was also assigned to a â€