People v. Smith

After revocation of outpatient status and return to Patton State Hospital (Patton), appellant James Smith, Jr. (Smith), claims he should instead have been given a sanity trial under mandatory provisions of Penal Code section 1026.2, subdivision (e) (hereafter section 1026.2 (e)). We hold the provisions of section 1026.2(e) are directory, not mandatory, and affirm the revocation order.

Facts

Smith was sent to Patton in 1984 pursuant to section 1026, after a verdict finding him not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. In 1986 he applied for outpatient status under section 1026.2, and he was released to an outpatient program in September 1987.

In December 1988, some 15 months after Smith’s release on outpatient status, he was moved back to Patton pursuant to the summary return powers granted Patton’s director by section 1610. A revocation hearing scheduled for January 1989 was continued to July with Smith waiving time.

Following a hearing on July 14, 1989, Smith’s outpatient status was revoked pursuant to section 1609 and he was remanded to Patton for treatment. No request for a jury trial on the question of restoration of sanity was made to the superior court. Timely…