The People v. Pietromonaco CA3

DISCUSSION

Pietromonaco argues the trial court had no jurisdiction to extend his commitment after the prior commitment order expired. He relies for this proposition on People v. Allen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 91, 104, which held that the deadline for filing a petition for recommitment is mandatory and a recommitment premised on an untimely petition is invalid. This case does not involve an untimely petition. Pietromonaco conveniently neglects to cite People v. Cobb (2010) 48 Cal.4th 243, in his opening brief, and barely mentions it in his reply brief. People v. Cobb held that the trial court retains jurisdiction to conduct an extension hearing after the commitment period has ended. (Id. at pp. 249, 253.) Accordingly, we reject his argument that he no long fell under the MDO Act (§ 2960 et seq.) jurisdiction after his last term of commitment expired. Perhaps recognizing that his jurisdictional argument is lost, he argues for the first time in his reply brief that there was still a due process violation based on his personal refusal to extend, despite the fact that nearly every continuance was requested by his own counsel, and that his counsel represented to the court that he would obtain…