MERFIELD

People v. MERFIELD

Good Law
147 Cal. App. 4th 1071·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 228·2007 Daily Journal DAR 2317·54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 834·2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1815
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 21, 2007B190093California1,566 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perren, J.

Timothy Andrew Merfield was given the opportunity to contest the determination of the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) that he suffered from a severe mental disorder and, that as a condition of his parole, he be treated by the Department of Mental Health. (Pen. Code, § 2966, subd. (a).) He waived his right to a hearing. The time of his initial one-year commitment expired, and the BPT sought a further commitment. (§ 2966, subd. (c).) As we shall explain, the continued commitment hearing adjudicated only the criteria addressed to the current state of Merfield’s mental disorder. Once the initial commitment expired, he could not contest his mental state at the time of the commission of the underlying offense. (See People v. Francis (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 873, 878-879 [ 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 90 ].)

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Merfield filed his first petition challenging the BPT’s determination on October 4, 2004. He withdrew that petition, however, on October 19, 2004, and the court dismissed it without prejudice. At that time, the court notified Merfield that “[i]f you want to refile it within a reasonable time, . . . you can do that, but as both lawyers have indicated, after a long…

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.