Minor

People v. Minor

Good Law
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 99·227 Cal. App. 3d 37·277 Cal. Rptr. 615·91 Daily Journal DAR 1323·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 857
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 29, 1991A049813California2,048 words

Opinion

Opinion

King, J.

In this case we hold that the rule that a criminal defendant must be advised that commitment following a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) may exceed the maximum possible term of imprisonment for the underlying crime is retroactive. If, at the end of the maximum term, an unadvised defendant remains a danger to others, the proper procedure is to seek civil commitment pursuant to the Welfare and Institutions Code. We further hold that a defendant’s failure to raise the issue of his lack of advisement when previous extension petitions were filed does not constitute a waiver, since it provided him no advantage, but rather increased the length of his commitment.

The Attorney General appeals from an order granting James Thomas Minor’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.

On June 12, 1979, Minor, who had been charged with homicide, firearm use and two priors, withdrew his guilty plea and entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. He submitted the issues of his sanity and the degree of the homicide on the preliminary hearing transcript and two medical reports already on file. Minor admitted the use allegation and the district attorney struck the priors. The…

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.