Hannibal

People v. Hannibal

Good Law
143 Cal. App. 4th 1087·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1564·2006 Daily Journal DAR 13676·49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 645·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9567
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 10, 2006B187029California3,478 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perren, J.

Clarence Hannibal appeals from an order committing him to the Department of Mental Health for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen. Code, § 2960 et seq.) He contends (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for self-representation; (2) the relitigation of his mental state at the time of his controlling offense, which was at issue in a prior MDO proceeding, was barred by principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that he qualified as an MDO. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 12, 2000, Hannibal was convicted of battery with serious injury and sentenced to three years in state prison. Prior to his parole release date in 2002, the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) determined that he met the criteria qualifying him as an MDO, and required that he accept treatment as a condition of parole. Hannibal filed a petition for a hearing pursuant to section 2966, subdivision (b), to contest the BPT’s decision. That petition was granted on the court’s finding that there was a reasonable doubt whether Hannibal was suffering from a severe mental disorder at the time 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.