County of Los Angeles v. State of California

Good Law
132 Cal. App. 3d 761·183 Cal. Rptr. 5·1982 Cal. App. LEXIS 1660
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 17, 1982Civ. 62911California1,180 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kingsley, J.

The county appeals from a judgment denying its petition for a writ of mandate to compel reimbursement to it for funds expended under section 1026.5 of the Penal Code. We reverse the judgment with directions.

This case is an aftermath of the decision of the Supreme Court in In re Moye (1978) 22 Cal.3d 457 [ 149 Cal.Rptr. 491 , 584 P.2d 1097 ]. Prior to that decision, a person committed to a state hospital after a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, could be kept in confinement indefinitely, subject only to an annual proceeding for release in which proceeding he bore the burden of proving recovery. In contrast, persons committed to a state hospital under the mentally disordered sex offender act (MDSO) could not be confined for a period longer than the maximum term for the offense underlying their commitment, unless that confinement was extended by a proceeding under section 6316.2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code—a proceeding in which the burden of proof was on the People.

Responding to that decision, the Legislature, in 1979, by an urgency statute effective on September 28, 1979, enacted section 1026.5 of the Penal Code, limiting the maximum confinement of…

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.