Hill

People v. Hill

Good Law
134 Cal. App. 3d 1055·185 Cal. Rptr. 64·1982 Cal. App. LEXIS 1875
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 13, 1982Crim. 40274California1,889 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gates, J.

Weston Hill appeals from the order extending his commitment under Penal Code section 1026.5. He contends: “The motion to dismiss the extended commitment proceedings for lack of timely filing/hearing of the petition should have been granted.”

In 1976 appellant was committed to a state hospital for treatment pursuant to section 1026 of the Penal Code after he had been found not guilty of felonious assault (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)) by reason of his insanity. The terminal date of his potential confinement was later determined to be December 28, 1980. Therefore, in order to comply with the 90-day/30-day time limitations prescribed by Penal Code section 1026.5 it was necessary that any petition seeking to extend his confinement be filed not later than September 26, 1980, with trial thereon to commence not later than November 28, 1980.

The legislative objective in establishing these statutory limitations is clear, i.e., to allow a committee-patient and his counsel not less than 60 days to prepare for trial, and 30 days within which to complete such trial, without confining him beyond the maximum period permissible under his initial commitment. (See generally In re Moye…

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.