Tran

The People v. Tran

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 7, 2013H036977California13,721 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Dawn Quang Tran pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) to a sexual offense and was committed to a state mental hospital for treatment. (Pen. Code, § 1026.5, subd. (a).)1 Before the commitment expired, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a petition to extend it. (§ 1026.5, subd. (b).) At that time, the trial court was required to “advise the person named in the petition . . . of the right to a jury trial” (§ 1026.5, subd. (b)(3)) and conduct a jury trial “unless waived by both the person and the prosecuting attorney” (§ 1026.5, subd. (b)(4)). At a pretrial hearing, the court met with defense counsel and the prosecutor in chambers to discuss procedural matters. At that time, both parties waived a jury trial off

1 “Technically, once a defendant has been found not guilty by reason of insanity, he is no longer a criminal defendant, but a person subject to civil commitment.” (People v. Lara (2010) 48 Cal.4th 216, 222, fn. 5.) We shall refer to such persons as defendants or NGIs rather than “committees” or “persons committed.” All unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. the record. Thereafter, defendant appeared at the bench…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.